Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on consideration [28 June].

Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday 23 October.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 25 October at Seven o'clock.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 25 October at Seven o'clock.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 23 October at Seven o'clock.

ELECTION EXPENSES

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a return of the expenses of each candidate at the General Election of May 1979 in the United Kingdom as transmitted to the returning officers pursuant to the Representation of the People Act 1949, and of the number of votes polled by each candidate, the description of each candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the number of electors, the number of postal votes and the number of rejected ballot papers.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Armed Robberies

Mr. Michael: Brown asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has received about the number of armed robberies which took place in the last year: and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): In 1977 the police in England and Wales recorded 1,234 robberies in which firearms were reported to have been used. Information for 1978 is not yet available. I shall continue to support the firm action taken by chief officers to deal with armed robbery.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. It indicates, does it not, that some armed robberies are probably resulting in considerable numbers of deaths? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance—bearing in mind the decision that the House took last week, for better or worse, in the face of public opinion—that when trigger-happy criminals are involved punishment will fit the crime, particularly for armed robberies?

Mr. Whitelaw: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, a person found guilty of robbery, or of assault with intent to rob, is liable to imprisonment for life.

Mr. George: Is the Home Secretary aware of any figures of the number of firearms held, either legally or illegally?
It is from this vast pool of probably millions of guns that criminals are able to obtain guns for their purposes. Does the Home Secretary propose any legislative steps to reduce the number of firearms, particularly shotguns? Will he consider an amnesty for the holders of firearms? The last amnesty netted probably 50,000 guns and 1½ million rounds of ammunition.

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that there is a serious problem. I would not necessarily endorse the hon. Gentleman's figures. I should need to look into them in order to give him an accurate response. I accept that there is a duty on me to look into this matter and to consider what action ought to be taken.

Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that only a negligible proportion of these crimes involve weapons that are legally registered? Will he say what steps are being taken to prevent the bringing of hand weapons into this country from abroad?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with my hon. Friend that very few of these crimes involve the use of legally held weapons. As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, there is an important need to make sure that the custody of legally held weapons is properly secured. I believe that the interests concerned are ready to cooperate in that activity, and I shall be closely in touch with them about it.
I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer about hand weapons from abroad.

Juvenile Offenders

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had and with whom in relation to the introduction of a residential or secure care order for juveniles.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had and with whom in relation to the introduction of a residential or secure care order for juveniles.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the procedures for the detention and treatment of juvenile offenders.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): The Government are pressing ahead with considering how best to strengthen the powers of the courts in relation to young offenders. We shall carry out appropriate consultations as soon as we are ready to do so.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree with the local authority associations' view that, with their assessment facilities, they are best equipped to decide the needs of the young person for a residential place, fostering with a family, and that sort of thing? How would residential care orders and secure orders be varied during their operation if it became obvious that, either for the needs of the community or those of the young person, they needed to be varied?

Mr. Brittan: The way in which any orders would be varied is a detailed point that we are still considering and on which we shall be interested to hear the views of the bodies concerned when we proceed to consultations. The general question whether there is room for a residential care order has a wide degree of support in the country.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As no court has the power to determine the precise custodial conditions for adults, why do the Government consider it important that the courts should have more power over schoolchildren, particularly as more than 70 per cent. of young people living in institutions re-offend? Would it not be a more constructive approach to the problem of juvenile crime to emphasise the value of alternatives to custody rather than to embark upon a lengthy and expensive custodial programme?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with the importance of alternatives to custody, and the Government's massive support for the recent conference on intermediate treatment showed that they appreciate that to the full. On the other hand, I think that there is room also for a residential care order. The contrast that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw between adults and juveniles is not valid, because courts have


power to order custody for adults, whereas at present the law is somewhat different for juveniles.

Mr. Davidson: What representations has the Minister received from, or what consultations has he had with, magistrates in juvenile courts? He will be aware that magistrates have great difficulty in finding suitable places for young offenders, and therefore in passing what they consider to be suitable sentences. Incidentally, I applaud most of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks today.

Mr. Brittan: As I indicated in my earlier answer, the process of consultation has not yet begun.

Mr. Bevan: Will my hon. and learned Friend set up an inquiry into the early release from Her Majesty's prisons of criminals who have served but a fraction of their sentence?

Mr. Brittan: I should certainly be interested in any information that my hon. Friend has on this matter, but it does not relate to the question of a care order or residential care order for juveniles.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the Minister bear in mind that under the previous Government a code of conduct was drawn up between magistrates and social services departments for handling these care orders? Will he ask for a report on how that code of conduct has operated, before he goes any further with this matter?

Mr. Brittan: I certainly regard the code of conduct to which the hon. Lady referred as a most constructive and useful development. When considering how to go further we shall want to take account of the effects of that code.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Will the Minister accept that any change such as transferring powers from social services to magistrates would mean a large increase in the number of secure care and residential orders? How would that fit in with the shortage of accommodation and the need for the Government to spend large sums of money to create more places, which would go against their policy of cutting public expenditure?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. and learned Gentleman's assessment of the effect of a change of the kind that he mentioned must necessarily be somewhat speculative.

I do not think that one can draw the conclusions that he has drawn from the change, the precise nature of which has not yet been worked out, still less announced.

Detention Centres

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give details of his proposals for a new regime of short, sharp custodial experience in a number of detention centres.

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give details of his proposals for a severe regime in detention centres for persistent and serious young offenders.

Mr. Brittan: We shall announce our proposals for a more vigorous regime in certain detention centres as soon as we are ready to do so.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that he will not be ready to do so during the recess and that he will make this announcement to Parliament before the experimental regimes are instituted? There is considerable opposition to these harsh new regimes, particularly among people with long experience of working with young offenders.

Mr. Brittan: I recognise that the announcement of the details of these regimes will not be wholly free from controversy. However, I assure the hon. Lady that it will not be possible to commence the operation of any such regime before the recess is concluded.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that though there might be considerable criticism of these regimes there is also considerable public support for the idea? Many of us hope that he will proceed with them at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Britton: I am aware of, and welcome, that support. I assure my hon. Friend that we are proceeding as rapidly as possible to give reality to the idea of these regimes.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister agree that the only short, sharp custodial treatment that makes any sense is one that


lasts for not more than 48 hours, because after that institutionalisation sets in, followed by recidivism, followed by an increase in the crime rate, ad nauseam?

Mr. Brittan: I agree that a short sentence is probably more beneficial for this purpose, but the idea that 48 hours is the appropriate period is a gross exaggeration.

Mr. Nelson: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the genuine concern that some of us feel about these proposals? Will he also bear in mind that similar experiments in the 1960s were not only an abject failure but showed that there was substantial resistance among those in charge of young people to adopting the necessary disciplinarian attitudes? What makes my hon. and learned Friend think that it would be any different this time?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept that what occurred in the past was a failure, and to the extent that the changes in the regime have come about since those days, that was largely because the wrong people were sent to those regimes. I am surprised that those whom one would assume would regard it as sensible to provide the right sort of treatment for the right sort of people should find that to be so humorous a proposition. In all seriousness, it is important to ensure that a regime of this kind is made available for the right sort of person—the person who is most likely to respond. They are people who, early in their criminal careers, have committed a rather serious offence of violence, vandalism, or something of that character. I believe that for those people a regime of this nature has a useful and, indeed, important contribution to make to our penal policies.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As the Minister admitted in an earlier answer to me that there was no evidence to support the notion that short, sharp sentences would be effective, why is he proceeding with the proposal?

Mr. Brittan: I made no such admission.

Ku Klux Klan

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will refuse entry to the United Kingdom to any emissary of the Ku Klux

Klan or other American racist organisations.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): Yes, Sir, provided the person concerned is subject to immigration control and his background and purpose in coming here are known to the immigration officer at the port.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware of the visit paid by John Tyndall to the United States last month as a guest of the Ku Klux Klan and some of the most virulently racist organisations in the world? Will he let Mr. Tyndall, and all others in this country so involved, know that on any return visit members of the Ku Klux Klan will not only be deported but will be stopped by whatever lawful means are at his disposal?

Mr. Raison: I was not aware of the visit to the United States of John Tyndall, but it is our policy to refuse admission to known members of the Ku Klux Klan.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Minister avoid confining non-admission to racists from the United States? In the spirit of the question that was asked, would it not be right for there to be similar prohibitions on anti-Chinese racists who might come here from Vietnam, on anti-Asian racists who might come here from Uganda, and, indeed, on anti-Jewish racists who occasionally come here from Russia?

Mr. Raison: I certainly offer no support to racism of any kind, but that is another matter.

Local Radio and Cable Television

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the future of local radio and cable television.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have received representations on the future development of local radio from many organisations and individuals, most of whom were responding to an initiative by the Home Office local radio working party. These representations are discussed in the working party's second report, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House yesterday.
As to cable television, we have received two representations urging the authorisation of pay-TV services.

Mr. Whitehead: As the working party is now looking at the future of local radio, will it also look at the state of local radio that we already have? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread concern, on both sides of the House, at the progressive restriction of BBC local radio? Will he say to the Corporation that a Radio 2 with opt-outs will not be local radio, will not sound like local radio, and will serve neither the neighbourhood nor the community in the way that the BBC intends?

Mr. Whitelaw: As someone who has always previously supported the place of BBC local radio alongside independent local radio in the whole set-up, I shall naturally take that on board. I am discussing the whole question of the BBC's future, as well as its charter and finances, with the BBC, and I shall take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion into account.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us did not support the previous Government's unwillingness to allow the BBC to raise the licence fee, which is now one of the reasons being given by the BBC for having to curtail local radio services? Has my right hon. Friend anything to say in that regard?

Mr. Whitelaw: Not today.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am disappointed that he has nothing to say about that today? Does he appreciate that unless the BBC's finances are properly reorganised it will be unable to provide local services on the scale that it requires and which I think the public desire?

Mr. Whitelaw: With my officials I have entered into discussions with the BBC on its future financing and various programmes. It is important that these should be discussed closely and considered carefully before coming to a decision.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We are glad to note that the second report has been published. Bearing in mind that this is the responsibility of the BBC, may we be told what is happening about local radio, because there are disturbing reports about the number of hours that are being cut in each area? It would be valuable to know about this from the right hon. Gentleman rather than from the newspapers.

Mr. Whitelaw: Decisions on local radio are matters for the BBC. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a detailed answer.

Police Cadets

Mr. Garel-Jones: asked the Secretary tary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the considerable contribution made to the police service by police cadet courses, he will take steps to restore the position for admission of cadets which existed prior to the October 1976 cuts introduced by the previous Government.

Mr. Brittan: Cadets are a useful aid to police recruitment and resources are available for an increase in strengths. It is, however, a matter for local decision how much of the money available to the police should be spent on cadets, taking into account the need to augment recruitment of police officers by this method.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the wastage rate among cadets going into the police force is authoritatively estimated to be about one in 100, whereas the wastage rate for adult entry is as now as low as one in three? Is he aware also that in my own county of Hertfordshire, where the possible intake of cadets is 60, since the cuts by the previous Government the number of cadets coming into the force was as low as six in the first quarter of this year? Can he give some assurance that the Government will repair the damage that was inflicted on cadet training forces by the cuts imposed by the previous Administration?

Mr. Brittan: It is fair to say that the restrictions on cadets and civilians were partly lifted during 1978–79, so the public expenditure plans for 1979–80 make provision for the level of cadets to rise to 4,000. On 31 March this year there were 3,145 cadets. Therefore, within the scope of what is anticipated there is room for a substantial increase in cadet numbers. However, they are expensive compared with direct recruitment, and a working party of the police advisory board is being set up to study the whole system.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that, contrary to the implication in this question, the previous Government gave full support to cadet courses? If


the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) wants to make this kind of implication in his question the Minister will have to face the fact that between the last year of the Conservative Government in 1973 and the last year of the Labour Government there was a dramatic improvement in police recruitment.

Mr. Brittan: I am not answering for the previous Labour Government or even for the previous Conservative Government. I have tried to answer the question.

Police (Attendance Charges)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines exist for the circumstances under which chief police officers may charge for the attendance of the constabulary.

Mr. Brittan: The practice of charging for the attendance of police officers is governed by section 15 of the Police Act 1964, which provides that a charge may be made by the police authority if the chief officer of police has been requested to provide, and has provided, special services at any place.

Mr. Miller: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that on several occasions police cover in my constituency has been severely reduced by the need to send support to major cities to provide protection for the public—persons and property—against organised marches and demonstrators? Will he consider whether it might be advisable to allow chief officers to charge those responsible for such demonstrations and marches for the police services provided and to recompense police officers who are injured in the execution of those duties?

Mr. Brittan: I am extremely sympathetic to the thinking behind what my hon. Friend has said. At present, charges can be made only for what are described as "special police services", which are services which would not normally be provided in pursuance of the general duty of the police to preserve law and order. The sort of police activity that my hon. Friend has described is onerous, expensive and can lead to casualties, but it is within the ordinary course of the work of the police in the sense that it is for the purpose of preserving law and order. Therefore, at present charges

cannot be made. However, I think that the case for the extension of the right to make charges deserves serious consideration.

Mrs. Knight: Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether there is any possibility of presenting a bill for police attendance to protect the public and small shops when football supporters go on the rampage?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that is possible at the moment.

Mr. Stoddart: If the hon. and learned Gentleman believes that the organisers of marches should pay a charge for police services, does he think that that might be extended to people who run racecourses such as Ascot, where the police have to deploy many men to deal with traffic and other problems?

Mr. Brittan: The difficulty, and the matter that causes justified anxiety and concern, is that people who run events of that kind pay for police services inside the place of activity, whereas others do not. I think that there is a case for looking afresh at the whole question of police charges.

Special Patrol Group

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men have left the Metropolitan police special patrol group since 1 April as a result of (a) their own request or resignation and (b) decisions of their superiors.

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand from the Commisioner of Police of the Metropolis that since 1 April eight officers have left the group at their own request, two have resigned from the force and five have been transferred to other duties.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Home Secretary agree that one of the merits of the general British system of policing is that local policemen deal with local matters and have to live with the consequences of their actions? Does he accept that the special patrol group represents a concept that is wholly alien to that basic merit of the British system, in that it frequently moves into an area, causes a great deal of trouble and, whatever chief officers of police or the Police Federation may say, causes a great deal of discontent


among local policemen, who have to live with the consequences of the actions of the SPG?

Mr. Whitelaw: The principle of local police is a right and proper one, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, I believe that the SPG has made an extremely valuable contribution to the effective use of the force's scarce manpower resources. The evidence of what it has done, and the way in which it has dealt with crime in different areas, has been very valuable indeed.

Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend not see a discrepancy between his ability to give an answer to question 8, concerning the time that has passed since April, and his inability, in reply to question 1, to give the figures for armed robberies seven months ago? Is it not time that the Home Office began to look into the procedures by which the assessment of figures can be speeded up? At a time of increasing crime it is ridiculous that we cannot produce figures that are more up to date than seven months ago.

Mr. Whitelaw: I note my hon. Friend's point. It is important to realise the enormous expenditure of resources to provide all the statistics, both for the House and for the country. It cannot be done quickly without a considerable expansion of resources.

Mr. Flannery: Will the Home Secretary take note that since the brutal murder of Blair Peach a large number of people throughout the country are very much afraid of the special patrol group, especially if they have seen it in action, as I have, repeatedly? Would he not expect the best elements of the special patrol group to leave en masse in view of what has just happened and the fact that we all know that a whitewash is on the agenda after that murder?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be quite wrong of me to follow the hon. Gentleman in some of his accusations. Commander Cass's report went to the Director of Public Prosecutions on 16 July. The coroner's inquest has been adjourned until 11 October. In those circumstances, I cannot possibly comment, but I do not for one moment accept some of the hon. Gentleman's strictures.

Deportation

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were deported from the United Kingdom during 1978.

Mr. Raison: A total of 767, Sir.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the Minister agree that, to judge from the evidence since 3 May this year, those figures are likely to double in the coming 12 months, and that the country now has the most formidable and strict system of immigration control anywhere in the world? Does he accept that all those who are about to be deported, either by order of the court or order of the Home Secretary, should have the right of appeal in this country, particularly when they have been payers for a long time of national insurance contributions and income tax?

Mr. Raison: My Department is determined to take firm action against all those who disregard the immigration laws. We believe that that is essential. We also believe, however, that the system for reviewing deportation matters is extremely careful and thorough. During May and June this year the numbers deported were below those deported during the equivalent months last year.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: There is one matter about the working of administrative deportation that perhaps I may ask the Minister to examine. I found—and I started to have the matter looked at—that someone can be locked up for a long period, purely by administrative order. I ask the Home Office to keep looking at that, because it should not happen in this country unless we are sure that it is necessary and that the procedures are right. I was beginning to question that.

Mr. Raison: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I am prepared to look at that matter.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Minister willing to have one more look at the case of Mr. Savvas Christophi, my constituent, who is due to be deported this weekend? If he is deported there will be a large amount of unemployment in South-East London, because he is an immigrant who has been here for seven years and has


worked hard and built up a thriving business, which now, owing to the action of the Minister's Department, will be taken to pieces.

Mr. Raison: I do not think that it is appropriate to deal here with individual cases.

Immigration

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce the proposed changes in the immigration rules.

Mr. Raison: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated when replying to questions on 17 July, we intend to announce these changes soon after the Summer Recess.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that there is grave concern throughout the country about the proposed changes? Will he give an undertaking to have the fullest possible consultations with immigrant groups and others before he announces the changes?

Mr. Raison: I am aware that there is considerable discussion about the changes, which we hope to bring forward as soon as is feasible. There is plenty of chance for representations to be made, and they are being made to my Department.

Dr. Mawhinney: My community relations council in Peterborough recently announced that it was receiving a flood of applications from people living in my constituency who were seeking British citizenship prior to the introduction of the legislation. Will the legislation have any effect on people living here who are seeking to become naturalised British citizens in advance of its being enacted?

Mr. Raison: The original question relates to the immigration rules. I think that my hon. Friend's point is to do with the nationality laws, which are another matter.

Miss Richardson: Will the Minister accept that great resentment is felt throughout the country by British wives whose foreign husbands or fiancés will probably be affected by the proposed changes in the immigration rules? They feel that it is sex discrimination, apart from anything else, and that under the

present Government they are likely to be faced with permanent separation from their husbands and fiancés.

Mr. Raison: I must ask the hon. Lady to await our announcement about the changes in the immigration laws.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the fiancé racket? Is he aware that some Indians who genuinely lobbied for young men to come from the Indian subcontinent to marry their daughters here are now lobbying their Members of Parliament and the authorities for the same young men to be deported, because they have used the marriages as marriages of convenience and deserted the daughters?

Mr. Raison: One of the factors behind whatever policy changes we announce is bound to be attention to the kind of racket that my hon. Friend has described.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the package of measures to be announced will be debated at some length? Some of the measures can be introduced in a debate lasting an hour and a half late at night. There is considerable concern, both in the House and outside, about their content.

Mr. Raison: Changes in the immigration rules have to be brought before the House. It is possible for them to come before the House by prayer, but the length of the debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Fire Cover (Greater London Area)

Mr. Guy Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present level of fire cover in the Greater London area.

Mr. Brittan: Under section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947 it is the responsibility of the Greater London Council to maintain a fire brigade of sufficient strength to meet efficiently all normal requirements. I have no reason to believe that the council is failing to discharge this statutory requirement.

Mr. Barnett: But is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that there is widespread concern in Greenwich and other parts of London about the current


position? Is he aware that the Greater London Council is hiding behind what it describes as interim arrangements in order to cut the fire service? How long must we wait for a real tragedy before the Home Office does something about this?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept for one moment that the GLC is hiding in any way, as the hon. Gentleman described. The fact is that Home Office responsibilities lie in the area of approving or not approving changes in establishment put forward by the GLC. It has put forward no such request as yet, although it is expected that it will do so. It is a responsible body, bound by the law to comply with its statutory obligations under the Act. It is the council's responsibility. I have no reason to believe that it is not fully aware of the great duty that lies upon it or that it is not discharging it.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is it not the case that under the 1947 and 1959 Fire Services Acts it is not only establishment that is covered but the closing of a fire station and reducing the number of whole-time and part-time members, and that approval must be obtained from the Home Secretary before that is done? Certainly no approval was sought from me. May we be told whether approval has been sought under that legislation yet?

Mr. Brittan: It has not, Sir.

Charity Events (Bottle Stalls)

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the law to enable fund-raising organisations to have bottle stalls at their charity events.

Mr. Raison: I do not expect there to be an early opportunity for Government legislation on this subject.

Miss Lestor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the law is being interpreted differently in different areas? In some areas local fetes and other activities to raise funds for parent-teacher associations and senior citizens are being prevented from having even a bottle of sherry as a prize for a tombola or raffle? Is that seriously what the law was intended to do?

Mr. Raison: I am aware of the problems and of the fact that there are varia-

tions, but how the law is interpreted is a matter for the courts.

Mr. Emery: Has my hon. Friend considered by letter on that matter, which is not a party political issue? Will he consider encouraging a single-clause Private Member's Bill to try to straighten things out?

Mr. Raison: I am tempted to say to my hon. Friend that it is very much a party political matter because the political parties are greatly affected by it. If private Member's legislation is brought forward, we shall give careful and sympathetic consideration to it.

Terrorist Suspects (Access by Solicitors)

Mr. Race: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will allow automatic access by solicitors to prisoners held in the United Kingdom under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, following the Government's acceptance of the Bennett report.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have no present plans to do so. The recommendations of the Bennett committee related to the interrogation of people suspected of offences listed in the schedule to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. The special provisions of that Act do not apply to Great Britain. The general question of access to solicitors is being examined by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure.

Mr. Race: Is it not the case that thousands of people who are arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the United Kingdom, other than in Northern Ireland, are not able to see a solicitor for a long time after their arrest, and that the vast majority of these people are innocent of any crime and are subsequently released by the police? Is the Home Secretary aware of the widespread concern about the use of the Act—the way in which people are held in custody and their denial of access to a solicitor? Will he urge immediate action to rectify that dangerous precedent?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has made wide accusations about the number of people who have been denied access. If he has such evidence, perhaps he will be good enough to let me have it. I have no such evidence. I have followed


the procedures under the Prevention of Terrorism Act as carried out under my predecessor. That Act has done great good for the country, and it is carefully and sympathetically administered by Home Secretaries of all parties.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee access, even if there is not to be automatic access? We are in agreement across the Floor of the House over our concern that where there is denial of access to legal representatives for those under questioning difficulties do arise.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has a considerable record of work in Northern Ireland and understands these problems. If he has any evidence, I shall be grateful to have it and will consider it most sympathetically.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State recognise that the change in practice in Northern Ireland is relevant to practice in England and Wales? In Scotland there is a statutory right of access to a solicitor under section 19 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act. In Northern Ireland there is a right of access by practice to a solicitor for terrorist arrestees, but not for others. In England and Wales there is no right of access to a solicitor. Will the Secretary of State refer the change of practice in Northern Ireland to the Royal Commission on pre-trial procedure so that it can take that into account along with the other factors when considering what changes in practice need to be adopted in England and Wales?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly see that the exchanges in the House this afternoon are brought to the attention of the Royal Commission.

Shoplifting

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the document submitted to him on shoplifting by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington entitled "Take It or Leave It".

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sending me a copy of his report on shoplifting. We shall let him have our comments when we have had time to study the report in detail.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his interest in the matter. Is he aware that the authors, including myself, have had a widespread reaction from people all over the country who are increasingly concerned about the fact that the self-service method of trading is resulting in an increase in shoplifting? If the Home Office is interested in preventing crime, will it begin to look seriously at those whose trading methods are resulting in an increase in crime?

Mr. Whitelaw: The Home Office is interested in stopping crime in every way. At the same time, I think my hon. Friend will be the first to agree that many of the proposals put forward by the Home Office working party on shoplifting in 1973 are the responsibility of the stores concerned, and they should be encouraged to fulfil those requirements and carry out the necessary precautions.

Elections (Candidates' Tellers)

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to returning officers at parliamentary and local government elections about the desirability of permitting candidates' tellers to be accommodated within schools and similar buildings where there are polling stations.

Mr. Brittan: None, Sir, but we shall consider the need for guidance on this matter in the future.

Dr. Marshall: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that it is right that some candidates' tellers should be forced to stand outside in the driving rain and snow, as happened at some polling stations in my constituency on 3 May, when there is adequate room in corridors where they could play their part without interfering in the electoral process?

Mr. Brittan: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. It is open to acting returning officers to designate as a polling station only part of a building, in which case tellers would have the right to sit or stand in the corridor if that was so desired. We shall be providing a comprehensive memorandum of guidance to acting returning officers, as was issued in 1974. When doing so we shall bear that point in mind.

TUC

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked The Prime Minister when last she met the TUC.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I met the economic committee of the TUC on 25 June.

Mr. Davidson: Will The Prime Minister sit in with the Chancellor of the Exchequer this evening when he has discussions with the TUC and listen carefully to what the TUC has to say about the dangers of the cuts on the scale that she envisages? Those who are dependent upon public services, such as places in old people's homes and meals on wheels, will be hit hard. Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that areas such as North-East Lancashire, which she has deprived of intermediate area status, will be doubly hard hit?

The Prime Minister: We are trying to contain public expenditure to the level of expenditure this year. To do otherwise would be to impose extra taxation and rates on people who are already overtaxed and over-rated. The hon. and learned Member obviously wishes that we had more resources to spend, and there are many areas in which I should like to increase spending. The best way to get more resources is to encourage the TUC to urge its members to increase output per person. Until we do that we shall not be able to increase our standard of living, either privately or publicly.

Sir Paul Bryan: When the Prime Minister meets the members of the TUC, will she tell them of the encouraging results of the Geneva conference on refugees, which she initiated? Will she confirm that the nations attending the conference have promised resettlement places in their countries to no fewer than 260,000 refugees, and will she tell the House how many of those refugees will be taken from the transit camps of Hong Kong, which hold more than 66,000 refugees?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the refugee conference in Geneva was a great success, in that it managed to get many more promises for resettlement and a lot more money than we should have had without it. It also

managed to persuade the Vietnamese to stem the flow of people being forced to leave Vietnam, so it was a tremendous success.
We shall take refugees preferentially from Hong Kong. I pay tribute to the Governor of Hong Kong and to the staff there for the wonderful work that they have done over this difficult period.
I am certain that everyone in this country—and that includes the TUC—will welcome refugees from tyranny.

Mr. James Lomond: When the right hon. Lady met the economic committee of the TUC, did she give it any advice to pass on to ordinary working people about what to do when they receive their 85p tax reduction? After they have paid the increases in rent and rates, VAT, petrol, school milk, school dinners and prescription charges, should they use the remaining 5p to buy their council house or to buy British Aerospace shares from themselves?

The Prime Minister: Strangely enough, I did not encounter any complaints from the TUC about reductions in taxation on earnings. That reduction gives everyone the opportunity to earn more in order to do the very things that the hon. Gentleman enumerated.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, perhaps she can ask it to tell its members that if they want to avoid the biggest inflationary increase that this country is likely to see in the next year, when the Labour Party puts its subscription up from £1·20 to £5 they can leave it?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that is sound advice.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Prime Minister aware of the human effect of the public spending cuts that she is introducing, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) was right in saying that the real cost falls on those who can least bear it because in areas such as Leicestershire the authorities are already proposing to close children's homes, old people's homes, convalescent homes, and to cut domiciliary care and those services which people desperately need who cannot cope without them?

The Prime Minister: I repeat that public expenditure for this year is being contained at the level it was last year. Therefore, people are having to pay the same amount in taxes and rates, in a different pattern, and we are also having to borrow very heavily. Those who wish to spend more on the public sector have three choices—to tax more, to borrow more, or to encourage people to produce more.

BATH

Mr. Chris Patten: asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Bath.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Patten: I thank my right hon. Friend for what is, I hope, a temporarily discouraging reply. Will she make it clear when she visits other constituencies that cuts in public spending should fall just as much on those who administer public services as on the services they administer and on the contracts they place with private industry? Can she also make clear what steps she will take to see that that happens, for example, by setting up a special unit in No. 10 Downing Street or the Cabinet Office to monitor it?

The Prime Minister: We have tried to ensure that the cuts fall more on the administrators than on the services themselves. It was with that in mind that we have a 3 per cent. cut in the Civil Service and a ban on recruitment for three months. After that, the amount of administration should be contained in the budget for each Department. We are also to cut one level of administration from the National Health Service. I believe that the best way to cut administration is to have a strict budget and to leave it to Government Departments and the local authorities to make cuts in administration and not in the services.

NORTH-EAST LANCASHIRE

Mr. Trippier: asked the Prime Minister if she will visit North-East Lancashire.

The Prime Minister: I hope to do so during the recess.

Mr. Trippier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be extremely difficult for Members who represent North-East Lancashire constituencies to explain to their constituents why there should be increases in telephone charges when the Post Office last year made a profit of £375 million? Does she also agree that it will be more difficult for us to explain the increases in postal charges when those of us who come from North-East Lancashire are still receiving letters from our constituents asking us to vote for or against the reintroduction of capital punishment, the Abortion Bill, and the legislation to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has voiced the feelings of many people that the standard of service is not as high as the charges in either the telephone or the postal service. It is difficult when there is a monopoly service to make comparisons. There is no standard of comparison. There is no substitute for competition. When there is a monopoly there is no competition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is considering the structure of the Post Office and the monopoly itself.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: When the right hon. Lady visits Lancashire will she attempt to explain how her policy of closing hospitals and old people's homes will increase output per man?

The Prime Minister: I hope that those who can increase output per person will do so now that they have been given the incentives.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: When my right hon. Friend visits North-East Lancashire, she will receive a very warm welcome. Will she take the opportunity to explain to the people there—who understand these things better than do the people in some areas—that there are now great opportunities for an industrial policy that will get this country moving forward again?

The Prime Minister: There are great opportunities. Taxation is lower, there are fewer controls, and opportunities are very much greater. For the first time industries can go ahead in a way that they have not been able to do for many years. It is often said that if one gives people increased


responsibility some of them fear it, and that is so.

Mr. James Callaghan: Who said that?

The Prime Minister: Bernard Shaw. He said
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
But some, of course, will take advantage of the opportunities for enterprise that are open to them.

SCOTLAND

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on her recent official visit to Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I was glad to be able to visit Edinburgh on 11 July and to see at first hand the effective work that is being done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his departments. I visited a medical supplies factory, a hospital, police headquarters and a fisheries protection vessel as well as St. Andrew's House, where I had useful discussions with my right hon. Friend and his staff; I also called on the Lord Provost of Edinburgh.

Mr. Griffiths: Now that the statute book has been wiped clean of the Scotland Act and the Wales Act, what further plans has my right hon. Friend for that type of devolution on which the Government were elected—devolution from an over-large State to the individual citizen?

The Prime Minister: There is, of course, a great deal of administrative devolution already in Scotland. One thing that impressed me was that 8,000 people administer Scotland in Scotland and only 60 in Whitehall, so administrative devolution is very much in being. My hon. Friend asked about real devolution, that is, giving power back to the people. We hope to continue the cuts in taxation. We hope also substantially to reduce the number of controls on local authorities and on industry. That is real devolution.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the right hon. Lady recall that during the previous Parliament the Tory Opposition

campaigned vigorously for the dispersal of Civil Service jobs to Scotland? Will she undertake that those jobs will still go to Scotland in the numbers planned by the Labour Government? When does she think that unemployment in Scotland will, as a direct result of her policies, increase to 300,000 or 400,000?

The Prime Minister: A statement on dispersal will be made within a few minutes. It would be better if I were not to trespass on that. I hope that the ultimate result of our policies will be to increase genuine employment.

Mr. Henderson: Not only my right hon. Friend's recent visit to Edinburgh but her previous visits to Scotland in general have been appreciated. Will she confirm that Scotland provides a marvellous environment in which both to live and to work, not only for civil servants but for science-based industries, which would find an admirable quality of staff in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I hope to visit more science-based industries in Scotland and to make other visits. I hope also to spend part of my holidays there.

Mr. David Steel: When the right hon. Lady and her ministerial colleagues refer to devolution in Scotland, will they leave out, in that context, discussion of the proposed Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Is she aware that we had one such Committee before and that it was not a riotous success?

The Prime Minister: I did not include it in my reply.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Since the Tory vote in the referendum was influenced by the advice of Lord Home to vote "No" on the ground that he would see that a better Bill was produced than the Scotland Act, what representations has the right hon. Lady had from the noble Lord which would indicate that he has any intention of carrying out his promise?

The Prime Minister: I am in quite frequent touch with my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Home. His advice is always excellent. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will consult my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about future talks on devolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. James Callaghan: May I ask the Leader of the House—[Interruption.] I am grateful for the endearing bouquets which I receive every Thursday from Government supporters. I trust that they will continue. Meantime, may I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the first week after the Summer Adjournment?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Well done!

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for the first week after the Summer Adjournment will be as follows:

MONDAY 22 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Companies Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY 23 OCTOBER—Resumed debate on Second Reading of the Competition Bill.

Motion on EEC document 4627/79 on State aids to the steel industry and the explanatory memorandum of 20 July.

At Seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

WEDNESDAY 24 OCTOBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]: Topic for debate to be announced.

Motion relating to the Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices) (Revocation) Order.

THURSDAY 25 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Bees Bill.

Remaining stages of the Bail, etc. (Scotland) Bill.

At Seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

FRIDAY 26 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Charging Orders Bill [Lords] and on the Limitation Amendment Bill [Lords].

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting down once again the Second Reading of the Competition Bill. We trust that the exercise that he has had this week will have convinced him of the necessity to listen now and again to the representations of the Opposition on these matters.

As he said, the topic for debate on the Supply day will be announced later. However, as by then we expect some of the worst consequences of the Government's policies on inflation, unemployment and high interest rates to be forthcoming, it will almost certainly be an inquiry into them, and a detailed vote will be necessary on the way in which the Government have carried out their stewardship.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for the early warning, and I thank him for it. As for the Competition Bill, of course, I listened to the representations of the Leader of the Opposition, but there was some competition in that, also.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that on several occasions recently during business questions he has promised that before the House rises for the recess he will make a statement on the appointment of Select Committees. He will be aware that on the Order Paper two days ago there appeared a report, the author of which was the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, stating, amongst other things, that the Opposition had to report with regret that their Members on the Committee were again unable to propose any Opposition names. Is not this a most lamentable and deplorable state of affairs? Does it not reflect gravely on the responsibility of the Opposition in setting up Select Committees, bearing in mind that the House has been operating for three months without such Committees and that there is no certainty that we shall be operating with such Committees even in October? Can my right hon. Friend make a statement about it?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Of course, I have seen the report of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. The position is as my hon. Friend states it, and I regret it.

Mr. Orme: Rubbish.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I regret it very much, because I wish these Committees to be set up. I understand, however, that there are some difficulties. I shall do anything that I can to resolve them.

Mr. Foot: Would not the right hon. Gentleman prefer to tell the truth on this matter, as he had every opportunity


to do, and to make it quite clear that the reason for the delay is that there have been considerable disputes between the two sides about numbers in the allocation of the Chairmen of the Committees, and that it is only that factor which has held up the appointment of the Select Committees?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is practising what the theologians call "economy of truth". He has not given us the whole story in the matter.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman now explain why he did not refer to this matter when he gave his previous answer?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Because the question that I was asked referred to the report of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. If the right hon. Gentleman has complaints about the truth of that report, he should address his remarks to the Chairman and not to me.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On that question, will my right hon. Friend see whether it is possible to arrange for the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to be available for questioning in this House in the same way as the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee is, for instance? If it appears that, the House having voted that the manning of Select Committees should fall upon the Committee of Selection, the Labour Whips are now trying to recover that power for themselves, contrary to the vote of the House, surely the House ought to hear directly from the Chairman of the Committee of Selection on the matter.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall give that important suggestion my consideration.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given his office notice? While the Finance Bill is fresh in our minds, does the right hon. Gentleman recollect all the difficulties that have arisen about the definition of a charity? Is not it high time that the House debated the Goodman report on charities and the tenth report of the Estimates Committee before next year's Finance Bill, and preferably before Christmas? Could some time be given to this matter?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I share the hon. Gentleman's desire for a debate on that important report. I shall bear in mind what he said when arranging business for the next Session.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only with regard to Select Committees that the Opposition are in an appalling muddle? They are also apparently completely unable to agree who should be their representatives at the Council of Europe and Western European Union. Through the usual channels, will my right hon. Friend do his best to cure this paralysis on their part?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that any difficulties that there were have been smoothed out. In these matters, we must be tolerant of one another's difficulties, otherwise we shall not make progress in the House.

Mr. Grimond: When the Leader of the House, during his holiday, is ruminating on the events of the last week or so, will he try to do better about the organisation of the business of the House? It is a complete shambles that we should sit until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning discussing very important matters such as Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I took the precaution of being here until 3.30 this morning to discuss vital matters. In all seriousness, it does us no good to go away for two and a half months' holiday. I know that there are difficulties about the party conferences, and so forth, but I hope that next year the right hon. Gentleman will do better.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I reciprocate and hope that the right hon. Gentleman does better in his next intervention? As I have explained to the House, I have had to consider the desires of many hon. Members with family responsibilities—especially those from Scotland—to share some of the holiday with their children. I have had to balance that against the need to have late-night sittings, which I think were not quite as late as the right hon. Gentleman indicated. I remind him that in the three months since Parliament has been meeting the Government have fulfilled more of their pledges, legislative and non-legislative, than any other Government this century.

Mr. Farr: Has my right hon. Friend yet had a chance to look into the suggestion that a second Standing Committee should be set up to consider Private Members' Bills, in view of the great congestion that is likely to build up behind the Abortion (Amendment) Bill?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that my hon. Friend is premature in making that judgment. I must see what progress the Bill makes.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Leader of the House provide time, at the earliest opportunity, for a debate on the proposed composition of the Select Committee on Members' Interests? He will no doubt have seen the amendment tabled in my name and the names of several hon. Members which suggests that it would not be prudent for the majority of the Committee—according to the latest published account of Members' interests—to have outside interests? Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the matter forward for debate?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am trying to make progress on the matter. One of the difficulties is the very strong views of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cormack: Is it not a fact that by resolution of the House the Select Committees in question select their own Chairman? If that is the case, have the Opposition not been frustrating the will of the House by indulging in the tactics that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) has just mentioned?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am endeavouring, by consultation, to make progress in this difficult matter.

Mr. Maclennan: The Leader of the House spoke of the Government having fulfilled a record number of promises and mandates since the election. Does he recall the pledges that he made in respect of the arts? Is he prepared to make special arrangements, particularly in a week when the House has received a lobby from Equity, to consider the predicament of the live theatre, following the Government's increase in VAT?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot recall any pledge being made by myself on the question of VAT or by any member of the Shadow Cabinet on the question of

zero rating of the arts for VAT. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench felt so strongly, why did they not zero rate the arts during their five years in office?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: When the House returns, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement on Rhodesia to be made, if possible by the Prime Minister, and thereafter, as soon as convenient, a statement on public expenditure? Can he also help the House by saying whether he expects the official Opposition motion on the Supply day to be tabled by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) or by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that I can give my hon. Friend the undertaking about the statement that he mentioned. The question of who puts down what motion is not for me; it is a matter for the Opposition. I have enough troubles of my own without intervening in private griefs on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House give a guarantee that when we resume in October there will be no motions in accordance with a policy to freeze wages or interfere with free collective bargaining? If that does, unfortunately, take place, I can give him the assurance that I and my right hon. Friend, to whom his colleague referred earlier, will be in the same Lobby.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's views to the Prime Minister and others of my colleagues. The coming reunion in the Lobby that the hon. Gentleman has adumbrated would be an ecumenical occasion that it would be almost worth tabling the motion to achieve.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend not consider that it might be a good idea for the House to reassemble in late September so that the Leader of the Opposition might at least have a place of refuge and would not have to be exposed to the Labour Party conference?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is always possible, if needs arise, for the House to be recalled.

Mr. English: Will the right hon. Gentleman spend the next three months trying to create machinery within the Government whereby one Department tells another what is happening on the Floor of the House of Commons? The other evening it was most upsetting to see a Secretary of State forced to fill in for a junior Minister because his Department had not been told that another Department was not moving its order. Will the right hon. Gentleman, who is responsible, try to arrange that his subordinates do a better job in future?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I would have thought that if he was expecting a junior Minister and was addressed by a Secretary of State, he has no cause for complaint but, rather, for gratitude.

Mr. Stoddart: Has it occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that when we return after the Summer Recess Britain will have been a member of the EEC for about seven years? That is a time associated in Bible terms with plagues and famine. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging a full day's debate so that we can discuss properly and with adequate time the benefits, or, more likely, the disbenefits, of our membership of the EEC? Perhaps we can also discuss the £1,000 million contribution that we make to the EEC, which is almost equal to the cuts in public expenditure that the Government intend to make in the autumn.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Costain: Is the Leader of the House aware of the fact that the report by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection was unanimously agreed by the Committee? Is he further aware that Conservative Members on the Committee are ready to put forward their names? Will he give the House an assurance that if the Opposition come to their senses he will place the matter on the Order Paper as soon as we return after the recess?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend has made his point clearly. I have nothing to add.

Mr. Faulds: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, since my knees are tiring from having risen through every Prime Minister's question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I recommend the hon. Gentleman to take a long rest?

Mr. Faulds: At your request, Mr. Speaker, certainly until 22 October. I shall then be back on my feet. Having been pre-empted by one of my colleagues, may I slightly extend my question to the Leader of the House? When are we to have legislation on a national heritage fund, proposed by the previous Labour Government—or is that proposal to disappear under the public expenditure cuts affecting the arts and the heritage which at least he and his leading lady had the decency to oppose in Cabinet?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope that we shall make progress on the question of a national heritage fund. I am sorry that better progress was not made in the philistine Government who preceded this one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it was a philistine Government.

Mr. Faulds: The fund was our creation.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it was not a philistine Government, why was he not in it?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Reverting to the question of the Select Committee numbers, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what is his attitude to item number 5 on the Government Notices of Motions? An amendment has been tabled. Can my right hon. Friend give the House any guidance on what is happening on that matter today?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope that we can make progress today on the question of numbers. We have been trying to do so for some time.

Mr. Gutmmer: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that early in the new Session we have a debate on agriculture, so that the House may know how much this Government have done to improve the standard of living of the farm worker and farmer compared with five years of static behaviour from the previous Government?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope that, a reasonable time after we return from the recess, we shall have a debate on that subject.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are two statements to follow business questions, but since this is the last day I will call those hon. Members who have risen, if they will co-operate by asking brief questions.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the serious allegation made by Eschel Rhoodie—who was involved in the Muldergate scandal—that Members of Parliament are financed by the Pretoria Government? May we have a statement as soon as we resume on an investigation during the recess into these serious allegations?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Of course I am always concerned with any matters that reflect on the good name of hon. Members, but I have learnt that one should not take as facts allegations that are unsupported by evidence.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman avoid making his holiday arrangements too far in advance, since, because of the Government's extremist policies, there will be demands from the public and from hon. Members for the recall of Parliament long before 22 October?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that advice but, unlike him, I have so far made no arrangements for the holiday.

Mr. Flannery: From his undoubtedly profound inner knowledge, will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us about the character of the package of goodies that his Government will unleash on an unsuspecting British public in the recess, while we are not looking?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas I do not know quite to what the hon. Member is referring, but if he has in mind certain reports of cuts in Government spending I would

only say that if the British public are unsuspecting they must be deaf, dumb and blind.

Mr. Dubs: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the difficulties that often face the House when we have long and complicated ministerial statements after Question Time, particularly when they deal with reports such as the recent one by the Royal Commission on the National Health Service? I know that some hon. Members can ask searching questions about reports that they have not read, but that is not a gift that all of us have. I wonder whether we could have a better arrangement, so that we have the reports some time before the ministerial announcements.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate the point, which in an ideal world we could no doubt realise, but even more important is that, when important decisions on policy have been made by the Government, the House should be informed as soon as possible.

Mr. Greville Janner: As so many of the feared reductions in the facilities for the elderly, the sick and the disabled will take place during the next three months, may we at least have the assurance that there will be an early debate on these sad matters as soon as possible after the House returns?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope that the hon. Member's fears will not be realised, so the need for a debate will not arise.

Mr. Foulkes: Following the previous question, by the time that we return from the so-called "Summer" Recess it will be very cold, at least in my part of the country. Therefore, what arrangements will be made for the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement about the extension of the fuel discount scheme and for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement about the insulation scheme before we return?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall convey those views to my right hon. Friends concerned.

OIL POLICY

3.56 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the Government's oil policy and the British National Oil Corporation.
The Government have reviewed the full range of the BNOC's activities. They have also had much in mind the serious decline in offshore activity.
After discussions with the chairman and the BNOC board, the Government have concluded that BNOC can best serve the nation's interests in a continuing but much more limited role than at present, and that the pattern of ownership of the Corporation's assets, at present exclusively in State hands, should be changed.
The House will be aware that the BNOC is engaged in two main activities. It is an oil trader on a large scale, mainly by virtue of its right through participation agreements with other oil companies to purchase 51 per cent. of most of the oil produced on the United Kingdom continental shelf, and it is a substantial enterprise in the North Sea, engaged in exploration, development and production.
As far as the trading activity is concerned, the Government have decided that the Corporation's access to oil through the participation options should be retained. Although, in conditions of major shortage, I can take powers under the Energy Act 1976 to control and direct oil movements, in conditions of limited shortage, such as we are now experiencing, BNOC's direct access to "participation" oil, together with royalty oil, strengthens our position. Of course, quantity of oil, and thereby security of supply, also depends on economical pricing, and that is why we have removed the price controls which we inherited.
As to BNOC's offshore assets and interests, the Government believe that those should be more widely owned. This objective can best be achieved through the disposal of assets from State hands or by the introduction of private capital into the operation. I will be making a further announcement in due course on this.
Furthermore, the Government have decided on a number of steps in the area

of BNOC's exploration, development and production activities. The Corporation has too many licence obligations and commitments, along with a number of privileges vis-à-vis other oil companies. These features are themselves a source of the instability and lack of confidence that have come to characterise the offshore oil exploration scene—which it is essential for us to change.
The Government have decided, therefore, that BNOC's preferential position in future licensing rounds should be ended and that its present over-extended exploration commitments should be reduced. The Government also intend to end BNOC's special access to Government finance through the national oil account. These changes follow the Chancellor's announcement that BNOC will be liable to petroleum revenue tax in common with other oil companies and my announcement ending the previous policy of giving BNOC a first refusal whenever an interest was assigned between companies on the North Sea. I have also decided that the Corporation's statutory role as adviser of the Government should be removed, and that the Corporation should no longer sit on every committee operating the North Sea fields where it has no equity stake. I shall be strengthening my Department's resources so as to ensure that the Government, in the exercise of their regulatory role, are fully able to protect vital national interests.
Some of the changes that I have outlined will require legislation, which will be introduced later in the Session.
The moves announced today will in themselves encourage companies to explore more widely and to invest more confidently in development. We must encourage more investment both in drilling on already licensed territory and in deeper waters on the United Kingdom continental shelf. Our decision to examine with the industry the problems of the so-called marginal fields should also be of positive help.
In addition, I am today confirming the first batch of awards of licences under the sixth round, and the announcement of further awards will follow shortly. I am also well advanced with the preparation of the seventh round of licensing.
I believe that all this will make a major contribution to restoring a high level of


exploration activity on the United Kingdom continental shelf after the recent very serious slow-down.

Dr. Owen: For a party that bedecks itself in the Union Jack at every opportunity, this is a miserable statement. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that oil policy involves more than the public sector borrowing requirement? It is a vital national strategic resource—something that was recognised in this House half a century ago by a previous Conservative leader, Sir Winston Churchill, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party in defending the Government's role in British Petroleum.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, far from reassuring the industry and creating more stability, his statement about the disposal of assets and the introduction of private capital raises more questions than it answers? How many assets does he intend to dispose of, of what value, and to whom? Will he assure the House that no foreign person or company will be able to acquire a major holding in the British national resource of the North Sea?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that in raising any public capital he will not make any decision before these issues can be discussed in the House, and that he will not dispose of BP shares before these issues can be discussed?
It is not good enough, on the last day before the recess, to make a general statement in the House about the intention to dispose of or to weaken national control over a major national resource.
Is the Secretary of State aware that offering to strengthen the bureaucracy in his Department at the expense of BNOC's oil men is hardly guaranteed to improve our control over North Sea oil? Does he agree that one of the vital attributes of BNOC is its knowledge and expertise about exploration and development, and that that advice and knowledge should be made available to the Government? We shall oppose any legislation or action based upon his statement.

Mr. Howell: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not see fit to welcome the new impetus to restore our exploration in the North Sea, which is in the interests of the nation and of everybody who lives in it.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the setting up of BP by the late Sir Winston Churchill. That was a classic example of the type of mixed finance which today's Labour Party is so obsessively against.
Far from continuing uncertainty, my statement will end an uncertain period that stretched back over several years. It will greatly improve the position of the oil companies and the BNOC so that they can get on with their jobs without getting into each other's hair.
I cannot make a statement on the capital structure today. These are matters that are to be decided. I shall do my best to keep the House fully informed.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about British ownership in the North Sea. The proposals will encourage more British investment in the North Sea. One of the worries about past policies was that not enough British capital was attracted into North Sea projects. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the stronger Government regulatory role. It is the proper business of government to pursue and formulate effective policies for the North Sea. That is more desirable than relying on a large, overextended State Corporation which, in a more limited role, can play a useful part. The BNOC has been allowed to become overloaded. It has become a drag on North Sea development.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement will be widely welcomed? Can he assure the House that after his discussions with the chairman of the Corporation he is satisfied that the future level of North Sea exports will be more in line with the national interest than it was under the previous Administration?

Mr. Howell: The BNOC, together with other oil companies, has made changes in its export dispositions. That arose primarily from this Government's decision to get away from the labyrinth of price controls, which denied the British people a fair and reasonable share of limited world oil supplies. I believe that we shall now see a healthier development. I have discussed these matters with the chairman of the BNOC.

Mr. Grimond: Does the Secretary of State agree that uncertainty will not be


removed until the legislation based upon his statement is introduced? Will he undertake to do that as soon as possible?
Will BNOC still be entitled to buy 51 per cent. of all oil produced from the North Sea if it wishes? Why should that encourage further exploration?

Mr. Howell: I am advised by many people in the oil industry and in the BNOC that my proposals will remove uncertainty and enable the BNOC and other oil explorers, developers and producers to get on with the tasks which have been held up. This is reflected in the appalling drop in the number of exploration wells. In the first six months of this year only 13 exploration wells were drilled, compared with 37 in the whole of last year and 67 in the previous year. Those figures are inadequate. I think that the uncertainty will be ended.
The participation arrangements will continue, giving the BNOC the right to buy, at market prices, 51 per cent. of North Sea oil production. That will be at market prices, and therefore the oil companies must continue to accept that the BNOC is a major company. The price determines the incentive to explore, develop and produce.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement will be met with criticism by constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does he agree that it would be wrong to open up the BNOC to foreign penetration and that it should be reserved for British citizens? Will he consider that matter seriously?

Mr. Howell: Of course I shall seriously consider what is in the best interests of the people and the nation. I believe that as a consequence of what I have said today there will be more British investment and involvement in the North Sea.

Mr. Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his sensible statement will do much to lift the blight imposed by the previous Government upon North Sea exploration? Will he confirm that, far from protecting British interests in the North Sea, the BNOC was exporting two-thirds of its oil during the recent crisis?

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that my proposals will help to lift the blight. I confirm what my hon. Friend says. The fallacy in the minds of some Labour Members is to equate State ownership with national interest, influence and control. They are not the same. The British people have had every reason to learn that from events in the early part of this year and in the past five years.

Dr. Owen: The Secretary of State has made a serious implied allegation. He implies that the BNOC has not acted in the State's interest. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman's doctrinal view of the BNOC, he owes it to that Corporation and the people who work for it to make it profitable at least to say that they have worked in the national interests.

Mr. Howell: I made no such allegation. I said that narrow State ownership is not necessarily—and, indeed, not often—in the interests of the British people. That applies to State industries of many types, including the BNOC. That is no allegation against the work of the BNOC or of its chairman, with whom I have had many constructive discussions. I fully recognise his energy and value. The right hon. Gentleman has got the matter completely wrong.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Since the Secretary of State has mentioned the benefits of his proposals to Britain, will he please spell out the benefits to Scotland?
The head office of the BNOC is in Glasgow. Does the Secretary of State propose to take staff away from Glasgow and to build up the petroleum division in his own Ministry in London? Does he agree that that is a damnable proposition, since the oil belongs to Scotland? Will he therefore transfer the petroleum division of the Department of Energy to Scotland from London?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Member is becoming unnecessarily excited. There will be considerable benefit to his fellow countrymen through exploration, investment, expenditure, equipment and more activity in the North Sea. That will help the hon. Gentleman's country. I am surprised that he has not seen fit to welcome my statement.
I do not think that there will be any substantial or even minor cuts in the staff of the BNOC. The Corporation has large


and over-extended commitments. Over one-quarter—or 145—of the licences issued for North Sea exploration are held by the BNOC, out of a total of 457. It is not a question of cutting staff so much as cutting commitments so that the staff can get on with the job, as I know they wish to do.

Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rundown of expansion in the North Sea under the previous Government is best illustrated by the fact that when the Labour Government came to office there were 28 exploratory rigs in the North Sea but when the Labour Government lost the election only seven or eight such rigs were operating?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the confidence that will encourage international oil companies to return and explore in the North Sea will be restored, because they will no longer have the impression that the whole of the North Sea is in the BNOC's pocket?

Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend. Confidence will be restored, but we cannot undo in 10 weeks the jumble of five years.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State be more specific about the marginal fields? He promised talks. If the BNOC is to be dismantled, how can we have any confidence that fields will be dealt with in a rational sequence?

Mr. Howell: I do not think that the two matters are directly related. The BNOC had a preferred and irrational sequence in the fifth and sixth licensing rounds. In future rounds, as it will not have a preferred position, there will be a more open and rational sequence, which will allow small and large operators a fair share and a full input of enterprise in the North Sea. I hope that this will benefit the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend consider merging the rather diminished assets of the BNOC with the British Gas Corporation and offer a part of the combined Corporation to the public? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his proposals mean the abolition of the national oil account and the payment of the royalties and rentals to the Treasury?

Mr. Howell: The first proposition of my hon. Friend is an interesting one, but

my answer to it must be "No". No final decision has been taken on the future of the national oil account, but the BNOC will cease to have access to it.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in the United Kingdom will regard this as an exercise simply in transferring to private shareholders and private speculators additional loot from the public purse? The right hon. Gentleman said that the BNOC will no longer be entitled to sit on the committees. How will the Government secure access to the technological and geological expertise which is in the hands of the private multinational companies? Further, who will be the new chairman when the right hon. Gentleman gets rid of Lord Kearton? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us concrete proof, in the form of a White Paper or otherwise, to show how this new set-up will increase the amount of exploration in the North Sea?

Mr. Howell: I am satisfied that the strengthening of my Department's technical resources, combined with all the advice that I receive from many quarters, including the BNOC, is fully adequate to formulate effective national policies in the national interest in respect of the production, exploration and development of oil in the North Sea. There is no question of getting rid of Lord Kearton. He has indicated to this Government, as he did to the previous one, that he wishes to go some time this year. His appointment runs out at the end of this year. I shall make an announcement about a new chairman in due course.

Mr. Forman: Many of us on the Conservative Benches think that my right hon. Friend has the balance about right in his statement. Is he aware that there are very strong grounds for saying that the policies that he announced in his statement will manage to secure access to oil, control over depletion policy, and adequate monitoring facilities within the Department?

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I am convinced that these objectives can and will be achieved by the policy that I have outlined today.

Mr. Hooley: The Secretary of State's statement will be widely welcomed by


those financial and commercial interests who contributed most heavily to the Tory Party and who are now being repaid for their political bribes. Is it not extraordinary that in an industry that is dominated by multinational companies, which are difficult, if not impossible, for national Governments to control, he should set out to destroy an important instrument of national control, allegedly for the benefit of United Kingdom taxpayers as a whole?

Mr. Howell: I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has got it upside down. The statement will be widely welcomed by the British people as an important strengthening of our energy resources and of the investment potential in the North Sea to meet the energy strategy and needs of this nation over the next 20 to 25 years.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that the House is becoming quite myopic over North Sea oil, as though that were the only source of oil in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that we in the South are anxious that a further release of licences should be made as soon as possible, and that every assistance should be given to private enterprise in the English Channel so that it can make progress? Is my right hon. Friend aware that southern Members will be pleased to share their oil with Scottish Members?

Mr. Howell: I take note of my hon. Friend's comments. Of course, providence and geology have placed certain limitations on his aspirations, but at least one of the licences that I am announcing in the sixth round batch today is in the South-Western Approaches, and others are in the southern basin. This is therefore not entirely a northern affair.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In view of the Tory Party's declared policy before, during and since the election that it is in favour of improving industrial relations, to what extent has the right hon. Gentleman had discussions with the trade unions about these matters? Will he give an assurance that if those discussions are taking place they will continue through the following processes that are in train?

Mr. Howell: I have discussed this matter with the chairman and the board of the BNOC, but I thought it right that the House of Commons should be the first to hear our proposals and plans. Of course, it is now my intention to discuss them most closely with the staff, and I shall do so.

Mr. Sproat: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this major surgery on the powers and rights of the BNOC—powers and right that always owed more to political dogma than to commercial common sense—will be universally welcomed by those who work in and with the oil industry? What did the chairman of BNOC say about the proposals that my right hon. Friend has put forward today?

Mr. Howell: My conversations with the chairman are confidential. However, I believe that my announcement will be welcomed by all those who are in enterprise and activity of a very advanced and, sometimes, very strained and difficult kind in difficult conditions in the North Sea, as well as by many of those working in the BNOC.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement is nothing short of scandalous? It is scandalous that he should be flogging off great national assets and undermining the British interest by selling those assets off to foreign oil companies. By what mechanism does he intend to ensure that unprofitable fields are developed by private operators in the absence of control in respect of the BNOC?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) is confusing narrow State ownership with the British national interest. They are two very different things. I do not think that in its previous form the BNOC was concerned, or even wished, to rush into unprofitable fields. The first priority is to establish where there are commercially recoverable reserves, and then we must recover them. More of that will happen as a result of my statement today.

Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware of the dangerously large number of licences held by the BNOC, which has undoubtedly held up the development of North Sea fields, particularly because the limited number of extremely dedicated employees who have the necessary expertise within the BNOC have been


unable to give to each operating committee the amount of time that would be correct and justifiable?

Mr. Howell: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of the present position.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call two hon. Members before we move on to the next statement.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the Secretary of State satisfy me on one point? He seems to be stressing that the major surgery that he is about to embark upon—I remind him that sometimes patients die after they have had major surgery—will somehow encourage more exploration in the North Sea. Is he therefore saying that the best way of finding more oil in the North Sea is to keep drilling holes in the seabed instead of taking scientific geological surveys and examining the situation and then boring the holes in the reasonable way in which the BNOC has done so in the past?

Mr. Howell: The geology of the North Sea is very difficult. It is not always possible by geological surface assessments to locate pockets of oil under the cap of the continental shelf. The search for oil therefore requires extensive drilling over wide ranges of North Sea acreage. I think that my statement today will encourage that. It will also encourage further drilling on territory that is already licensed.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Under this Government the price of a gallon of petrol has risen from 80p to £1·20. Does that not mean that there will be tremendous profit in the exploitation of North Sea resources? Should we not therefore be increasing public participation, especially since four public industries have recently reported profits totalling £1 billion? Could not that money be invested in the North Sea to ensure that the British people get the maximum return? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall, in history, the South Sea Bubble? Is this not the North Sea Bubble?

Mr. Howell: I think that both sides of the House recognise that we have a sensible and fair tax system for North Sea oil production. I think that that is

recognised also by foreigners who come here. The profits that remain after taxation provide the impetus that goes into investment in North Sea energy resources, which will secure those resources for ourselves, our children and our children's children.

CIVIL SERVICE (DISPERSAL)

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
On 11 June the Government announced that they were going to review the programme of Civil Service dispersal. The Hardman report of 1973 had produced three possible options. Our predecessors then produced a plan which was significantly different from any of them.
When we came into office we found that it was proposed to disperse not only a further 21,000 Civil Service posts from London but 4,000 from such places as Harrogate, Bath and Didcot. Such dispersal moves from places outside London were never suggested in the Hardman report and it is impossible to see the justification for them. The present programme would cost over £250 million during the remainder of the present public expenditure survey period to 1983–84, and we should be well into the 1990s before the benefits from dispersal began to offset the costs.
Whilst I recognise that in the assisted areas the dispersal programme has been viewed as an important element in improving employment opportunities, nevertheless some of the important considerations which led to the setting up of the Hardman study no longer apply. In 1973 the Civil Service was expanding and the Government faced the prospect of providing more offices at high London rents. The Government intend to reduce the size of the Service. Moreover, the gap between office rents in London and in the provinces has substantially narrowed and the long-term financial benefits of moving people out of London are that much the less.
Having considered all these factors, the Government have reached the following conclusions. Three moves already in progress should continue. These are the moves of the Manpower Services Commission to Sheffield, the Export Credits


Guarantee Department to Cardiff and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas to Salisbury involving a further 2,600 posts. There are two further small moves which would increase the efficiency of the departments concerned at very little cost. These are the laboratory of Her Majesty's Stationery Office to Norwich and a small group of about 90 Customs and Excise staff to Southend.
The Government have also decided that some dispersal of Civil Service posts is justified to meet the particularly pressing needs of Glasgow and Merseyside. A total of at least 2,000 posts will therefore be moved to Glasgow and East Kilbride by the Ministry of Defence and the Overseas Development Administration. The Glasgow posts will be located at the St. Enoch's site. There will also be a dispersal to Bootle where there is a large building available. The full composition of this has not yet been settled but the first tranche of 250 posts will be the Home Office computer centre and a unit from the Property Services Agency. All the posts in the revised programme will be taken from the London area.
Much of the dispersal programme which we inherited from our predecessors has been so altered from the original aims of the Hardman report that it would have made no sense in terms of regional policy to proceed with those moves. In the light of all the altered circumstances, we have decided to proceed only with the moves which I have just announced. This will mean a saving in planned public expenditure of well over £200 million up to 1983–84.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his announcement means that the 20,000 promised jobs are not to be dispersed to the regions? Is he aware that that will cause deep bitterness and resentment in the areas that will be deprived of employment prospects that the previous Government offered to them and on which they have spent considerable time, effort and resources in planning for?
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the £200 million short-term gain that he has announced will be obtained at the sacrifice of a long-term saving of about £800 million of public expenditure, a sum that accelerates the longer dispersal takes place? Does he agree that this is another hammer blow to the regions on top of

those already administerd by the Government to regional policy, shipbuilding and various other areas? Is he aware that there will be sites in the areas that were to receive dispersal jobs that will be vacant for many years to come?
How much expenditure has been incurred by the Government and by local authorities in the areas where moves have now been cancelled? Will the Government pay any compensation for the large sums that have been expended by some local authorities? Is it not true that no serious consideration has been given to the real economic and social needs of the regions? Does the Minister agree that, as with other areas of real need, they are being sacrificed on the high altar of Tory doctrine?

Mr. Channon: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is exactly not so. I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about a long-term gain of £800 million. That is much exaggerated. A great many of the purported gains would have come many years ahead. Circumstances have changed. The programme that I have announced will save £200 million or more in the next few years. We have done our utmost to proceed with elements of dispersal to Scotland and to Merseyside, which I hope will be of some benefit to those areas. In the present public expenditure situation, I think that I have done the best that I can to satisfy both sides of the House.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has seen that many right hon. and hon. Members are rising in their places to seek to catch my eye. I shall do by best, as I realise the importance of the statement. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will co-operate by asking brief questions.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend accept our thanks for introducing a rational policy where previously there had been pure political gerrymandering, announced in some instances in written answers the day before the general election? His statement will be greatly appreciated in Devon.

Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. I never understood the logic that led some to say that we have to disperse jobs from Devon


and other areas outside London. That was no part of the Hardman proposition. I am glad to have been able to help my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mellish: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Hardman report was very much out of date by the time that it appeared? Employment prospects in London were very good, but those prospects have completely deteriorated and employment opportunities in London have been seriously limited for a long time. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I and many other London Members made representations to the Labour Government and to the present Government pleading with them not to continue with the Hardman proposals per se but to consider them on their merits? I am very concerned about Government chemists. In heaven's name, what are we thinking of in considering transferring 300 chemists to Cumbria? As far as I know, there are no unemployed chemists in Cumbria. Will the hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that the 300 Government chemists will stay in my constituency, where they belong?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I can assure the right hon Gentleman that the proposed move of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist is not to take place. It would have cost £26 million to move 360 employees. I took careful account of the representations made by the right hon. Gentleman when he came to see me and also those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) when he came to see me on behalf of his constituency.

Mr. Chris Patten: Will my hon. Friend recognise that his excellent statement will be widely welcomed in my constituency, especially by the Civil Service unions, their members and their families? Does he also recognise that the scheme to move over 800 jobs from Bath was properly attacked by the Civil Service unions as illogical, ill-conceived and financially indefensible?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is due largely to the diligent representations made by him and by many other hon. Members that what I hope is a satisfactory solution has been arrived at.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Middlesbrough council is committed to an expenditure of over £1 million, and that the Government are probably committed to an even greater expenditure, in making arrangements for the Property Services Agency to come to the area? Is he further aware that if the agency came to Middlesbrough it would so restructure employment in the area that no longer would Cleveland county be dependent upon heavy industry alone? Although the Government have now decided not to send the agency to Middlesbrough, will he confirm that that is only a deferment and not a permanent decision?

Mr. Channon: I should be deluding the House, the right hon. Gentleman and Middlesbrough if I were to say that it is a deferment. It is better for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to know that the Government have made the decision that regrettably it is not possible to send the agency to Middlesbrough. I shall explain why. By about 1986, the cost of the move would be approximately £44 million. I listened carefully to the representations made by the right hon. Gentleman, by Middlesbrough and by the county of Cleveland, but it was not possible to expend the vast sum involved.

Mr. du Cann: Is it not good regional policy to preserve jobs in the West Country as much as in any other region of the United Kingdom? Is it not a fact that the situation of these good people should never have been put at risk and that they should never have been given great anxieties in the first place? Is it not clear to the House that we need a complete re-examination of these proposals to transfer large numbers of persons from one area of the United Kingdom to the other? Will my hon. Friend consider publishing a Green Paper or a White Paper on Government policy in general on this subject?

Mr. Channon: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I was grateful for the representations that he made to me on this topic some time ago. I shall consider his suggestion and be in touch with him.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Does the Minister recognise that his statement, slashing the Civil Service dispersal programme, will dash the hopes of hundreds


of unemployed, well-qualified youngsters in the regions who saw the dispersal of Civil Service jobs as their one hope of access to administrative jobs? Is it not a contradiction that he should be making this statement at a time when there are 10,000 Civil Service vacancies in London which he cannot effectively fill?

Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about this topic and dealt with it in the past. He must face the fact that the programme would have cost £250 million. We have tried to help Glasgow and Merseyside, and not penalise them by going ahead with the ludicrous proposals to move people from the West Country, Harrogate and other similar places. I understand the point about vacancies in London. A great many of those are in local offices which, by definition, are not movable anyway.

Mr. John Hunt: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the sour reaction of the Opposition Front Bench, his statement will be widely welcomed, not least because, for the first time that I can remember, it shows that the needs and views of Greater London have been taken into account in a Government decision on dispersal? Will he remind the regional lobby in the House, as did the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), that conditions have changed fundamentally since Hardman reported and that there has been a dramatic deterioration of the employment situation in London, with unemployment in parts of inner London running as high as anywhere in the country? Therefore, does not the announcement today mark a significant step towards halting the drift of jobs and people from London, which has been going on for far too long?

Mr. Channon: I was grateful to receive a deputation composed of members of the Conservative and Labour Parties from Greater London. I considered carefully what they said, along with other representations, before the Government came to these conclusions. The House must recognise that in parts of inner London unemployment levels are very high indeed.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Is the Minister aware that his statement, coming after the statement made by his right hon. Friend

the Secretary of State for Industry to cut regional assistance, will be bitterly resented by the people of Scotland? It means—he must confirm this—that 4,000 jobs that we expected to come to Scotland will not now come. It is a denial of a specific pledge made by the official spokesman of the Conservative Party during the election campaign. The plans that the previous Government made will not now go through. That broken promise is bitterly resented, especially by the many young people who looked forward to these jobs with considerable expectation.

Mr. Channon: I am astonished at what the right hon. Gentleman has said. When I met the deputation of Scottish Members of Parliament, the Scottish TUC and others, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it was made totally clear to us that none of them wanted people dispersed from outside London to come to Glasgow. The posts from outside London will not go to Glasgow, and 2,000 posts will go to Glasgow and East Kilbride. That is more than the London jobs that were originally proposed and more than what Hardman recommended in 1973.

Mr. Alton: The Minister was careful not to mention figures for Merseyside, apart from a brief reference to the 250 jobs in Bootle. Will he say how many of the jobs originally expected to come to Merseyside will now come? Is he aware that the Exchange station site has already been cleared and that work was to commence on 1 August on the building of premises for workers expected to come to Merseyside? The Minister's announcement will result in another gaping wound in the heart of the city.

Mr. Channon: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. The total cost of the proposed dispersals to Merseyside, including Liverpool and Bootle, would have been about £48 million if they had all gone through. I shall check that and give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure.
We announced that we would disperse jobs to Bootle. The first 250 jobs have already been announced. There is a large building available in Bootle which can hold over 2,000 posts. I hope that a further statement will be made in due course.

Mr. Banks: Will my hon. Friend accept my warmest congratulations on and support for his wise statement? All the employees at the Royal Air Force establishment in Harrogate and their families will share a great sense of relief that they are now to remain there. Is the Minister aware that union representatives in Glasgow publicly announced the fullest support for the efforts being made by their membership in Harrogate to resist the dispersal? That was totally ignored by the previous Government?

Mr. Channon: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The most astonishing of all the proposals was that 1,170 jobs were proposed to be dispersed from Harrogate to Glasgow. When I am criticised by right hon. Gentlemen, I must say that it was the previous Government who put forward the ludicrous proposition that got them into the difficulty in the first place.

Mr. Heffer: The Minister gives the impression that this will help Merseyside. I am grateful for small mercies. Is not it clear that the Minister is going back on the proposals of the previous Government that this would affect not only new jobs in the Civil Service but also jobs in the construction industry and spin-off jobs which would arise as a result of the dispersal? Is it not clear that, as a result of the cuts in public expenditure that the Government are now bringing forward, Merseyside once again, despite the smokescreen, will be badly affected by Government policy—in fact, worst of all?

Mr. Channon: I hope that that is not so. After receiving representations from Merseyside Members of Parliament, I considered them seriously and did what I could for the area, which was the work in Bootle. I am sorry that it has not been possible to go ahead with the full programme. The House will see that the costs involved were enormous.

Mr. Emery: Does my hon. Friend realise that this is the first time we have had a statement on dispersal from a Minister which was comprehensive enough to cover all sections of the country and take into regard such places as the West Country, Harrogate and those areas that were always ignored by the Socialists when they dealt with this matter? Does he accept that there will be great pleasure among my constituents

who were to have been moved to Glasgow much against their will and at considerable cost?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He represented those views to me forcefully in the past few weeks.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Minister aware that there is a net loss of 4,000 jobs to Scotland as a result of the policy he announced and that his decision represents a defeat for the toothless wonders of the Scottish Conservative Party who, in the election, promised to fight and bring pressure upon the Minister, but who are now confounded by their own Government, who represent England?

Mr. Channon: I do not agree with the hon. Getleman. The number of jobs going from London to Glasgow has gone up, not down. The ridiculous proposal to move jobs out of London to Glasgow has gone.

Mr. Tinn: Does the Minister recognise what a savage disappointmet to Teesside is the loss of the Property Services Agency in an area of high unemployment heavily dependent on capital-intensive industries and basic industry to which this project would have made a major contribution? Is it not entirely wrong to save £44 million in the short term when these areas could have benefited so much from such development in the future and the Government themselves would have economised over the years?

Mr. Channon: I entirely understand that point of view, and my right hon. Friends and I considered it most carefully. In fact, £44 million is not a small sum of money, and the benefits would not have come for several years—indeed, not for quite a long time—and very reluctantly we had to come to the conclusion that it did not make economic sense to send the Property Services Agency there.

Sir William Elliott: Will my hon. Friend recognise that on the Conservative Benches, too, there is disappointment that the Property Services Agency is not to go to the North-East, but will he none the less accept that those of us who have carefully studied the Hardman report and tried to encourage dispersal to the regions realise that there is common sense in his present decision?
However, will my hon. Friend recognise that the establishment of the national insurance office in the North-East has been a considerable success and it is a great blessing for employment? Further, in the knowledge that the leadership of British Shipbuilders complains that its executives are constantly in the train between Newcastle and London, will my hon. Friend accept that we recognise that this is a problem of communication, and will he not close the door to further research on dispersal to the regions?

Mr. Channon: I certainly do not wish to close the door on anything, and I note what my hon. Friend says. I well recognise the difficult nature of the problems and the decision which had to be taken about Middlesbrough, and I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Mulley: While expressing satisfaction at the confirmation of the decision to move the Manpower Services Commission to Sheffield, I must ask the Minister to recognise the great anxiety and frustration caused to the staff of the MSC and all those concerned with the move in Sheffield by the unnecessary delay when the plans were so well advanced. Is the Minister aware that his statement today will be regarded with great disappointment by all regions north of Watford?

Mr. Channon: I very much doubt that what the right hon. Gentleman says is true. As to the first part of his question, one reason why I particularly wanted to make the statement before the recess was in order to let the staff of the Manpower Services Commission know what was going on. We have not been in office very long, and the right hon. Gentleman is a little ungracious in expecting us to make these difficult decisions even more quickly.

Mr. Graham Page: Will my hon. Friend accept further congratulations from these Benches on his sensible policy? I come now to a detailed question regarding Merseyside. From what he said, do I take it that the building which is to hold 2,000 will eventually be filled by Civil Service posts? It is nearly completed now. Next, I ask my hon. Friend about the building at South port which is proceeding and was to be filled by the Office of Population Censuses and

Surveys with some 500 posts. Is that to go ahead?

Mr. Channon: It is not proposed to move that particular Government Department to Southport. The question of what will happen to that building is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is considering it.

Mr. John Garrett: Why on earth does the Minister prevaricate on the dispersal of 500 computer staff jobs from his own Department to Norwich when the plans are made, the accommodation is much cheaper and staffing costs are much cheaper than in London? The move is popular and the jobs are desperately needed to compensate for the decline in the city's staple industries.

Mr. Channon: I have the figures here but I do not have them immediately to hand. The cost of making that move seemed to outweigh the benefits of going ahead, and the decision was taken for that reason.

Mr. Kershaw: Is this not a further recognition by the Goverenment of the realities of life, and would it not have been extremely inefficient over the years if these dispersals had taken place?

Mr. Channon: It would certainly have cost a great deal of money, and I wonder whether that could have been justified.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Can my hon. Friend say whether the dispersal in Sheffield will be on the scale that was originally envisaged, bearing in mind that, while we welcome that the process should continue, it has, I believe, gone too far? Is there not a danger that drastic changes in dispersal and cutbacks in the Civil Service could be as dangerous as the cutting of the TSR2 programme?

Mr. Channon: The question of the size of the Manpower Services Commission is not for me. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend and I shall see that he hears what my hon. Friend has said. The present plan is for this move to be completed to Sheffield, and I know of no change in it.
May I be allowed now to answer the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett)? I think that the cost of the move of the Civil Service Department would have been about £4 million.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I hope that the Minister will not mind too much if I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) in congratulating him on his statement, bearing in mind that for once London is considered. Will he take it that I, at least—and I believe that other hon. Members join me—appreciate the way in which he has listened to deputations from both sides and has come to a decision in the light of those representations? Nevertheless, if he has to consider this matter further, will he bear in mind that the London dock area should be considered in the future?

Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that unexpected tribute.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I see that a number of hon. Members are still rising to put questions. I propose to call each one of them, if they will be brief. I make that statement now to save a lot of frustration which I can see building up.

Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend realise that his announcement of 2,000 more jobs for Scotland will be warmly welcomed by everyone in Scotland not blinded by party prejudice? Is it not spectacular hypocrisy for the Opposition to complain when their record is that in five years they did not bring a single dispersal job to Scotland, and my hon. Friend has brought 2,000 in a mere 10 weeks?

Mr. Channon: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am deeply indebted to him and others of my hon. Friends for the energetic representations and powerful arguments which they have put forward in favour of this dispersal.

Mr. Millan: Is the Minister aware that there is a unanimous feeling in Scotland that there should be a dispersal of 6,000 jobs to Scotland, as promised by the Labour Government, and that the Scottish people well remember that in the recent election campaign Conservative spokesmen in Scotland specifically stated that those 6,000 jobs would go ahead? Why has that election pledge been grievously betrayed by the Minister in his announcement today?

Mr. Channon: What the right hon Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends will not get into their heads is that of the Glasgow jobs 3,880 were supposed to come from outside London.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It does not matter where they come from.

Mr. Channon: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but all the representations that we have had from Scottish organisations, including hon. Members on both sides, agreed on this one point, that they did not want jobs that had already been dispersed to be further redispersed. If 4,000 of the 6,000 jobs which the Labour Government proposed were from outside London, it is their fault, not mine.

Mr. Hannam: Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of the Civil Service Union and its members who have spent some two years, at great expense, moving into the Army pay offices in my constituency? Is my hon. Friend aware that the loss of the military presence in that part of the country would have meant that there would be no military presence left in what is a high recruitment area? Will he also take account of the fact that the cost of moving these offices to Glasgow would have imposed a great financial burden for administering the needs of nine corps of the Army which would have been mostly in the South of England?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has put forward those views very forcefully.

Mr. Lambie: Will the Minister realise that he talks nonsense when he says that Scottish Members of Parliament were interested only in jobs from London? Scottish Members were promised 6,000 jobs by the last Labour Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "And did not get them."]—and the Scottish electorate was promised 6,000 jobs at the last election by Teddy Taylor and the present Secretary of State for Scotland. We are now to get 2,000 jobs. Is it not about time that the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke up for Scotland in Parliament or resigned?

Mr. Channon: Whatever the last Labour Government may or may not have promised, I do not think that a great many jobs came. This is the first time that I have heard a Scottish Member


seriously suggesting that jobs from outside London should be redispersed to Scotland. That is not what anyone else has suggested.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that the saving of £200 million will be welcomed by those who are concerned with other aspects of Government spending? Can he say whether the defence codification authority at Mottingham is one of the establishments to be transferred?

Mr. Channon: I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer to that question. Perhaps he would be kind enough to get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Armstrong: Will the Minister give very serious consideration to the fact that there will be cynicism and anger as a result of his statement this afternoon, with its concentration on short-term financial benefits and no reference at all to the effect on families, on the prospects of school leavers, and on young people who over the years have been compelled to come to the South-East in order to follow a career? Is he aware that there will be serious consequences for this country? Will he bear in mind, further, that regional policy for 50 years has been designed to prevent this country from pursuing a two-nation course? Will he accept that the statement of the Secretary of State for industry, followed by his own statement this afternoon, will cause bitterness among those who are very concerned about this division in the country?

Mr. Channon: I always take seriously anything that the right hon. Gentleman says, and I am sorry that he felt it necessary to say what he has said. I can assure him that, with the decision the Government had to take, it was impossible to please everybody. We adopted what we hoped and thought would be the best solution in all the circumstances.

Mr. John Browne: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was considerable concern about this subject in the Winchester constituency and that his statement will be very welcome, not only in this respect but because it illustrates an interest in human beings and in individual freedom,

rather than in mere numbers and in State direction?

Mr. Channon: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that it is once again the Northern region that is being hit for six by the Government? I am referring not simply to the decisions about the Property Services Agency and Middlesbrough, or the Government Chemist in Cumbria, but specifically to the long-term importance of this kind of dispersal. Does he not realise that in the Northern region it is crucial to have these kinds of jobs in order to obtain the diversification that the Northern region so urgently requires?
Is the Minister further aware that nothing he has said today—indeed, his statement was extremely superficial—refutes the fundamental arguments of the Hardman report and the more recent report by Strathclyde university?

Mr. Channon: I have studied the Strathclyde report. I am afraid that I cannot accept all the conclusions in it. It is an interesting report, but I do not think that it goes too far in its conclusions. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, but the only proposals concerning the North were the ones that I have described, and they were extremely costly.

Mr. James Callaghan: I have waited until now Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of hon. Members. May I ask a constituency question? The position in Cardiff, as I hope the Minister knows, is extremely serious. Nearly 6,000 jobs were to come to Cardiff. As far as I can tell from the figures that the Minister has given, the number will now be reduced to 800. That is a loss of over 5,000 jobs.
When the East Moors steelworks was closed down last year, nearly 4,000 jobs were lost. It was said frequently that this would be made up, over a period of four to five years, by the transfer of the 6,000 jobs to which I have referred. The Minister is abandoning that prospect by reducing it to 800. What hope do the Government offer to my constituents and others in Cardiff that they will be able to find work?

Mr. Channon: Naturally, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to


take this point, and I have done my utmost to study the position in Cardiff very carefully, because it is a very serious one. The proposed moves that were outlined would have cost the country nearly £70 million over a period of years. In the circumstances, it seemed to my right hon. Friends that, although the right hon. Gentleman has a very strong case, the cost implication of going ahead with the Cardiff moves was such that it was not possible to sustain it.

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how much it will cost to have these men and women unemployed for the same length of time?

Mr. Channon: The whole purpose of dispersal is to transfer posts, not people. That is surely the intention that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues also had in mind.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will my hon. Friend indicate whether the planned move of the Land Registry to Peterborough is to go ahead? If it is not, could we have an assurance that the Secretary of State for the Environment will bear this in mind when he announces the review of new towns soon after the House resumes after the Summer Recess?

Mr. Channon: I have no proposals before me about the move of the Land Registry to Peterborough. I will write to my hon. Friend, if I may.

Mr. Parry: The Minister's statement today is another kick in the teeth for Liverpool from the Tory Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) pointed out that in addition to jobs we need a moral and psychological boost. The Exchange station site, situated in my constituency, would have provided four or five years' work for the construction industry on Merseyside, which has the highest level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Channon: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has said it to me very forcefully in the last few weeks. We did what we could to try to help Merseyside with the dispersal to Bootle. I am sorry that it has not been possible to go as far as he would like.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the last Government

not only failed to disperse a single job to Glasgow but that they also failed to do anything about setting up advanced training facilities for the recruitment of local labour? Will he confirm that this will now be done as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Channon: That is not strictly my field. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, and I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend who is responsible.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that tomorrow afternoon a delegation of the local authorities in my constituency, including the Cumbria county council, is due to meet the Secretary of State for Industry to discuss the dispersal programme as it affects Cocker-mouth? Does he not feel that a statement should be made as to whether it is worth while for that delegation to come to London, at very great public expense, only to be informed by the Department that the dispersal is not to take place? Perhaps the Minister could tell me whether there is any chance that these decisions are negotiable.
Will the Minister comment on a recent statement by the Home Secretary? He said:
I understand that the decision to move the Government Chemist to Cumbria is a firm one and I hope it will be implemented".

Mr. Channon: Perhaps the hon. Member will take up any such statement with my right hon. Friend. It would be misleading for me to say to the House that some of these decisions were negotiable. If I did that, it would cause even more uncertainty to communities and people than exists at the present time. That would be unfair. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member. It seemed to me that an expenditure of £26 million to move 360 people, and with an outstation still left in London, would be an extraordinarily large amount to spend on a dispersal of this kind. It is certainly not what the Hardman report recommended.

Mr. Peter Fraser: I recognise the reasons why my hon. Friend was unable to extend the dispersal of jobs to Scotland. Will he confirm that in the future the Government will keep in mind the great necessity to continue the dispersal of jobs not from elsewhere in the United Kingdom but from London? Will he also


recognise that, if we bear in mind the unity of this kingdom, what we have to look to eventually in terms of dispersal is not just the relative levels of office rents in London and elsewhere but rather more fundamental matters if we are to remain together as a nation?

Mr. Channon: What my hon. Friend says is extremely important. I hope that he will feel, in view of the representations made by him and other hon. Members from Scottish constituencies, that we have done what we could to try to secure a firm programme of dispersal to Glasgow and to East Kilbride, which I hope will be reasonably successful.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that the answers that he has given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) are totally unsatisfactory? It is not only a question whether the dispersal is right. It is a question also of political honesty. Is the Minister aware that the Conservative Party in Scotland, through its spokesman, Mr. Teddy Taylor, made quite clear that there would be no diminution of the dispersal programmes of the Labour Government when the Conservatives came to power. That was the promise made at the time. Does the Secretary of State for Scotland intend to make an announcement today concerning his resignation from the Government?

Mr. Channon: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is what I have been told by Scottish Members in the House, and that is that the previous Labour Government fouled up this whole programme by introducing these ridiculous dispersal plans for outside London.

Mr. Lang: In the light of the sour and embarrassed comments from the Opposition, who so dismally failed in this issue over a period of five years, can I reassure my hon. Friend that his announcement as it affects Scotland will be warmly welcomed, not least by my hon. Friends the Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament who campaigned intensively, and as one united body, to achieve this dispersal? May I congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving more—2,000 times more—in under three months than the Labour Party achieved in five years?

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the Minister make it quite clear that what we are talking about is not the movement of thousands of people but the dispersal of posts? That is the first point. Secondly, will the Minister refrain from using the smokescreen of Scottish Members wanting dispersal of posts from Gloucester, Didcot and Bath? Most of us agreed that that was not on. Will the Minister accept, therefore, that what he is perpetuating is the total imbalance of the Civil Service career structure which is completely based in London and the South-east of England? Neither I nor anyone else is averse to jobs coming to London, but it is not Civil Service jobs that London needs.
In order to complement what we already have—the Post Office savings bank, the Inland Revenue and the National Engineering Laboratory—Scotland requires further dispersal of posts to enable it to develop a proper Civil Service career—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman not to ask a question when others are waiting.

Mr. Channon: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that he does not want jobs from outside London. However, I think that he might at least have thanked me for the jobs that I have brought to his constituency. I have done my utmost to help East Kilbride. I did not notice a great deal of thanks coming from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend ignore the humbug of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) when he, a Scottish nationalist calling for the break-up of Great Britain, is quibbling over the number of United Kingdom Civil Service posts to be dispersed from London to Glasgow? Will my hon. Friend accept that we are very satisfied with what he has been able to do? What he has done will be widely welcomed not only in East Kilbride but in Scotland as a whole.

Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Craigen: When may we expect that a planning unit will be set up in Glasgow for the recruitment of staff locally?

Mr. Channon: I shall have to discuss that with my right hon. Friend who is principally concerned. I take note of what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Michael McGuire: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will publish full details of how he arrived at the decision not to transfer posts that were decided by the Labour Government as a saving in the national interest? I think that the Minister will agree that we are at some disadvantage, in that he answers a question by saying "Yes, the saving in that direction is £X million". Will he promise to publish and give us more details?
Will the Minister also recognise that many of us in the House—certainly on the Opposition Benches—regard the Civil Service jobs and these great Departments of State as a national resource to be shared out in the national interest? That being so, will the Minister tell us whether this is a final decision or whether it is likely to be amended? If it is amended, will he take into consideration the needs of the new town of Skelmersdale, the only new town in England, Wales and Scotland which has an unemployment rate amongst males of 18 per cent. and yet does not have the smallest Government Department? Will he consider its needs in the national interest?

Mr. Channon: To be fair to the House, I must say that this announcement is the end of this round of dispersal. However, the question of dispersal will always be open and I will bear in mind very much what the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) has said. I will certainly also consider the point he made about publication.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I just say to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) that I believe there is a saying that we keep the best wine until last.

It is unfortunate, but somebody must always be last.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Could I just say a word on that point, Mr. Speaker? You are the protector of Back Benchers and I have always been led to believe that you were a particular protector of those hon. Members who, for one reason or another, are not making a maiden speech once a week or even once a fortnight. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, quite sincerely—I do not know whether I am in order—that you have helped by recording those hon. Members who have been trying to catch your attention. I believe that it has always been the custom that Mr. Speaker will try to balance those who are called, in that if there were three speakers from the North-West you would not call three more from that area but would try to get a geographical balance. I think that this time that went a little awry. Whether that was because of your decision I do not know, but I would like, next time, to be put a little higher up the list. Leave it to another hon. Member to present the best wine last, as you so kindly put it.

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Graham Page rose—

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), may I say that, in view of the fact that we are going into recess tomorrow, I made tin my mind that I would call everyone. I therefore did not feel it necessary to be worried whether I called three hon. Members from the North-West followed by three from the Midlands. However, I still wish the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) a happy recess.

Mr. Graham Page: What I have to say is, I think, relevant to the point you have made, Mr. Speaker. May I call your attention to the fact that I had already given notice to raise this matter on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill later in the day? I am sure that any hon. Members who are dissatisfied with the shortness of their questions will be welcome to catch your attention in the early hours of the morning.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Finance (No. 2) Act 1979
2. Pensioners' Payments and Social Security Act 1979
3. Education Act 1979.
4. European Assembly (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979
5. Ross and Cromarty (Coastal Waters Pollution) Order Confirmation Act 1979
6. Ipswich Port Authority Act 1979
7. British Railways (Selby) Act 1979

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the House to move formally the Adjournment motion, I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer).

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, at its rising tomorrow, this House do adjourn till Monday 22 October and that this House shall not adjourn tomorrow until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move, after "rising", to leave out "tomorrow" and to insert "on Tuesday 14 August".

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss the associated amendment, after second "adjourn" to leave out "tomorrow" and to insert "on that day".

Mr. Cryer: This amendment was tabled with the idea of giving Parliament a greater amount of time to debate serious and important issues. The date of Tuesday 14 August was chosen because I thought that on Monday 13 August there might be a welcome absence of Conservative Members who were on the grouse moors and we would probably be able to debate matters in a more constructive manner and perhaps even get a few positive votes as we did, for example, on the vote to reject the break-up of the Post Office monopoly.
To substantiate the argument for more time, I must say that most hon. Members are concerned at the way that legislation has been crammed through the House over this past week—and not without error. Certainly the announcement today of the Royal Assent to one Bill ensures that at least one statutory instrument is no longer ultra vires and is given validity. It is because of this that I suggest that Parliament needs more time in which to debate important issues. One of the issues that I should like to see debated—I raised this matter during business questions today—relates to the Select Committee on Members' interests.
At present there is no great pressure about this Select Committee. It has been established by the House and the register


has been working to some degree. It is part of Labour Party policy—indeed, it was introduced by Labour Members—that there should be a register of Members' interests. It represents part of the pressure for greater freedom of information so that the public can know what interests Members of Parliament have and, therefore, make a judgment as to why an hon. Member might vote in a particular way.
The proposal to set up a Select Committee, which has been approved by the House, has been accompanied by a further proposal regarding the membership of that Committee. This House must demonstrate to the people outside that what it does is clear and without any undue pressures generated by other interests. Of course, I make no implication in respect of hon. Members whose names have been put forward for membership of that Select Committee, but I believe that it would be regarded by people outside as less than satisfactory if the majority of the Committee had outside financial interests. I must tell the House that in the last published register of Members' Interests, which unfortunately was as long ago as May 1976, the majority of those hon. Members did have outside financial interests. Therefore, if those hon. Members recommended that in some way the register should be curtailed, even though in their own lights they made the recommendation for the best possible motives, people outside might not see it in that way.
I urge the Leader of the House to consider for debate my amendment relating to the membership of that Select Committee, which suggests that the 1922 Committee of the Conservative Party—we are all in favour of greater democracy these days—should produce seven names that do not have outside financial interests. It may be impossible to do so, in which case we should know about it.

Mr. William Hamilton: I do not know whether there are seven.

Mr. Cryer: That might well be the case, but in debating this issue we ought to reflect on the great enthusiasm which Conservative Members displayed during the time that our salary increase was discussed. We should perhaps discuss what

sort of commitment is relevant to that level of payment—for example, whether it would not be reasonable to have full-time Members of Parliament without any outside financial interests. The result of that investigation by the Conservative Party could be conveyed to Parliament, and debated, if my amendment, which is supported by several hon. Members, were selected for debate.
There is another reason for having a Committee that has some determination, drive and enthusiasm to bring the register up to date. We are all concerned about the good name of the House of Commons abroad—by "abroad" I mean outside. The register was not introduced because hon. Members were enthusiastic about it. The first question that I ever put down asked when the register would be compiled, and an old Member told me "Of course, it will never happen. Nothing will change in this place." Several hon. Members who were sucked into the conventions and traditions were supposed to be very Left-wing agitators indeed.
However, a change did occur, not as a result of the attitude of hon. Members but rather as a result of the attitude of people outside. There was a succession of scandals relating to Members of Parliament with outside financial interests voting in a way that seemed to put them in line with those financial interests and not in line with their constituents or the political party that they represented. That was the pressure which resulted in the register of Members' interests.
It should be remembered that there was a Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life. It should also be remembered that this House made determined noises about how local authorities should conduct their affairs. Indeed, many local authorities have improved their standard of conduct. If we are determined to maintain the reputation of the House of Commons, we should be wary because there may be other scandals around the corner. To that extent, we must have a Committee whose membership is seen to be determined in such a way that criticism cannot be levelled, even though that criticism might be unjustified. It must be clear and above board that decisions are made without any pressure.
I refer to The Guardian of today and an article by Brendan Boyle in Amsterdam, in which he points out that
The fugitive former South African civil servant, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie, … is being held in a French gaol awaiting extradition".
Dr. Rhoodie has said previously that if he is to be subject to criminal proceedings there is a lot of information floating around that will be revealed. That article stated:
He has revealed among his new disclosures that the South African Government spent more than £30,000 on a covert project involving the British Parliament. It had previously been claimed that British MPs were taking money from South Africa's Department of Information.
Therefore, already claims are being made about what is happening in this Parliament and we are all concerned about it. We are all concerned to ensure that there is some machinery whereby we can refute those claims.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: My hon. Friend mentioned the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life, whose report was published in July 1976 and has never yet been debated. He has just referred to the allegations of Dr. Rhoodie about a Member, or Members, of Parliament acting in ways that might be alleged to be corrupt. But, as pointed out in the Royal Commission report, no hon. Member is subject to the criminal law for accepting money or bribes or being corrupt in pursuance of his parliamentary activity. It is that fact that is at the root of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. That would also be an interesting subject for debate between now and 14 August.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has made a point that we often forget. When we are confronted by some item of grave public concern, we go into the matter in great detail and the press asks "Why should this happen?" The matter then becomes forgotten, and people become comatose and content. We only react to a scandal. That is not good enough. We should set standards that are reasonable. The register of Members' interests was a useful guide, but some of the information that it contained was ludicrous.
I do not suppose that it could really be sustained that Lord Lever is devoid of

private financial support. Indeed, he did not even receive a Cabinet salary. He was not on supplementary benefit, and I assume that he had enough doubloons in the bank to pay himself. Yet his entry in the register of business interests was nil. That is the sort of area that needs to be tightened up, because we do not want to bring Parliament into disrepute.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of the House, can you explain whether hon. Members are able to debate the subjects that they would like to debate if we were to stay here for another fortnight, or whether they are merely allowed to state what subjects they would like to debate if we did stay here that extra time?

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection in ignoring such a frivolous non-point of order.
I have referred to the article in today's issue of The Guardian. The whole point of this debate is that we are saying that Parliament should not adjourn—I have given a useful date to clarify hon. Members' minds wonderfully—so that we may debate these issues now.
There is urgency about the matter, because a man who could be back to South Africa within the next few days is making serious allegations about hon. Members. That is why we need to debate the whole background, so that if the matter bubbles out during the recess we can say that we are taking serious steps. I do not want to go into more detail on that issue because many other hon. Members wish to raise urgent matters that they want debated before the House rises.
I turn to a local constituency matter. I have tabled questions about transport in the Aire valley. Promises have been made about a public inquiry into the Kirkhamgate-Dishforth proposed road. It has been promised before the end of the year. When we return from the recess we shall be perilously close to the end of the year. The reason for my asking about the inquiry particularly is that the Airedale trunk road inquiry has been deferred until after the Kirkhamgate-Dishforth road inquiry.
Many people in my constituency have been vitally affected by the proposal for


more than 10 years. The Labour Government promised that a public inquiry into the proposed Airedale trunk road would be held in November this year. It has now been deferred. I should like clarification of the timetable. The issue is important in the Aire valley.
We also want further details of schemes that I have suggested. I secured an Adjournment debate in February, when we discussed proposals for the electrification of the railway from Leeds to Skip-ton, running through my constituency. This is an important matter. Because of public expenditure cuts, the passenger transport authority almost certainly cannot contemplate the sort of expenditure on developing that railway service that it would have made but for the Conservative Government. We want to see a wholesale development, with the plans brought into the public arena, so that when the trunk road public inquiry is held people have full knowledge and know the background.
As we are approaching an energy crisis, we want action by the Government to develop the railways. We want them to consider electrification and to secure a shift from road to rail. This is an important matter. I hone that the Leader of the House will comment.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. John Ward: First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this House for the first time.
I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Oscar Murton, who served his constituency and the House in the same quiet and courteous way, a manner which the House got to know when he was Chairman of Ways and Means. He was ever kind, but on occasion he could be firm. I am sure that the House found, as we did in the constituency, that when he made up his mind that something was just, he could not be swayed. I know that other hon. Members will join me in wishing him every success as he continues to serve Parliament in another place.
Many people think of Poole as simply another holiday resort on the South Coast. As we enjoy the second largest natural harbour in the world, it is not surprising that sailing, water sports and

so on should be among our main attractions. An enlightened borough council has managed so to control development that we have a balance between industry, offices and residential developments, so that those young people who wish to do so can continue their careers in their own home town and spend their whole lives there.
We have also solved some of the problems of vandalism, the problems of empty streets at night. The entertainment centre, the swimming baths and the sports centre are all adjacent to the main shopping area, which means that at virtually any time of the day or night there is some activity in the centre of the town. The town is full of businesses, large and small, which I am sure will benefit from the measures recently introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.
We cover the whole range of industry, from electronics and engineering, caravans and boats to some of the better-known food products, which start life in Poole. We also have the headquarters of one of the major international banks. We are proud that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is also in Poole. The whole lifeboat movement is controlled from one of the buildings in my constituency.
It is perhaps a strange fact that many electronic instruments exported from Japan are fitted with liquid crystal displays exported from Poole. That achievement was recently recognised by a Queen's Award.
We have a thriving and bustling port. Those responsible for its development are determined that it will continue to be the servant of the people of Poole and not become their master.
It is in Poole that the European Community really takes life, because we are twinned with the town of Cherbourg. We have had one visit so far this year, and we look forward to another, when 800 people from Poole are going to Cherbourg to meet our friends there. Our roll-on/roll-off ferry, with three services a day between Poole and Cherbourg, plays its part in exporting. Even the oysters that so many holiday makers enjoy in Britatny start life in Poole harbour.
You will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that all in all it is possible to say that in Poole we are export-oriented.
You may find it strange, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I should want to tear myself away from the delights of such a constituency to suggest that we might extend this Session. I find myself—perhaps for the first and last time—in agreement with the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that we should put off the recess.
I continually receive messages from my constituents to the effect that exporting is becoming harder. The markets are tougher, yet more than ever, if we are to have economic recovery, we need those exports. My constituents welcome the fact that there will be less inteference by the Government in their affairs. They welcome the fact that as managers they will take decisions without the Government looking over their shoulders and that they will live by the result of their decisions. They hope that the shortage of skilled technologists which is apparent in Poole will be remedied now that tax cuts will make it worth while putting up with long and sometimes exacting training.
I also make a plea for continuing sympathy with the export salesman. He is the lifeblood of the export industry, but too often he has been neglected. I freely acknowledge the efforts of the last Government, but we still find that he is at a disadvantage from the point of view of disruption of his family life and the fact that he is often taking physical risks and putting up with arduous conditions. He is also still at a tax disadvantage compared with those who set up homes overseas in relative comfort.
Export orders are not obtained by correspondence. The salesman must be prepared to jump into an aeroplane at an hour's notice to get together with the potential customer. He often finds himself competing with salesmen from other countries who have been subsidised by their Governments.
Our customers are not interested in this country's problems. They are not interested in the fact that we have delays in manufacture and delivery, in the fact that we have industrial troubles. They feel that those are our problems, for us to sort out. Too often, while there are

quarrels within our industries, out competitors jump in and run off with the orders.
As I have said, the export market is a difficult area in which to work, and we need the wholehearted support of the Government at home and overseas. From my experience in exporting buildings and building management, that overseas support varies considerably. Where the ambassador appreciates the need for trade, the members of his staff are enthusiastic and helpful. Indeed, they often go out and seek commercial opportunities for our people. Regrettably, however, where in some areas we are still regarded as an intrusion in the daily round, we get less than the support that we deserve, and that gives our competitors a head start.
I should like to call for a more positive attiude from the Export Credits Guarantee Department at home, and I am concerned that we are moving that Department so far away from the banking world of the City. It provides a valuable service, but inevitably it is in the more difficult territories that we most need its help. Rarely is a decision reached with the speed that our customers demand, and our competitors have often obtained their credit insurance before we get off the ground. I am not asking for noncommercial decisions, but when inquiries are made they should be dealt with at a sufficiently high level to enable much speedier and more next-day decisions. Even if the decision is unfavourable, there should be time to seek other sources of finance. If a firm is left waiting for some weeks before a decision is made, its competitors have moved in and are halfway down the negotiation course before it starts.
Most of the export people belong to the "trade, no aid" school. Too often aid is wasted and has got into the wrong hands. Aid should be given in the form of building up industry within the countries to which it is given so that they can use their own natural resources. I include in that the training and management that a country needs to run new industries. I see nothing immoral, and everything good for this country and the recipient, if, when we give aid, we specify that the money shall be spent in this country with British industry. Our competitors are not slow to do that.
In basic industries such as building, the precious commodity of one satisfied customer is better than thousands of pounds of advertising. I look to the Government for more enthusiastic support for free enterprise, and those engaged in free enterprise are largely the exporters of this country. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will bear in mind the needs of the people who take the physical and financial risks in going into markets abroad.
As many of my colleagues have done, I conclude with thanks to the staff of the House and to other hon. Members. Over the past few weeks their friendliness and courtesy have made a memorable occasion also a happy one.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on an eloquent, informed and impressively genuine maiden speech. As he said, his predecessor was much respected on both sides of the House, and he is remembered for an abiding courtesy and a jealous concern for the reputation of the House. The hon. Gentleman will clearly be a worthy successor. In terms of local patriotism, he will certainly succeed. The House looks forward to hearing from him on many future occasions.
Now there are many strong, indeed compelling, reasons why we should not have such a long Summer Recess. I want to deal with one of them that is of prime importance to disabled people and their families. My purpose in intervening is to urge that we should not go into recess until we have had from the Government an assurance that very many disabled people are deeply anxious to hear. Long before October, they want to hear that the Government have unequivocally rejected the recent call from the Association of County Councils for section 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to be emasculated.
In a press release on 10 July, the association published what is called
… revolutionary ideas on how local authorities can save money.
Its ideas included one for the provision of services under section 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act to be made discretionary.
These services include practical help for the disabled person in his home; adaptation of the home; the provision of a telephone and of any special equipment necessary to enable him to use a telephone; transport to and from services provided by the local authority outside the home; meals in the home or elsewhere; radio, television and recreational facilities inside or outside the home; holidays; and assistance in taking advantage of educational facilities. These are services that have helped to sustain many hundreds of thousands of severely disabled people in their own homes. They would otherwise have been forced into institutional care, to the distress both of their families and themselves.
To emasculate section 2 of the Act, to pull it to pieces in the way proposed by the Association of County Councils, would not save public money. On the contrary, by forcing disabled people out of their homes, it would raise public expenditure, since hospital and other forms of institutional care are so often very much more expensive than domiciliary services of the kind provided under the Act. The assurance I am seeking before the House goes into recess is, therefore, of importance to taxpayers and ratepayers as well as to the disabled people who feel threatened by the proposals that the association has put to the Government.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act passed into law in 1970 entirely without party animus. As its promoter, I was assured by the Conservative Party's then Shadow spokesman for social services, Lord Balniel, now the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, that if my Bill failed to reach the statute book because of lack of time before the general election of 1970, his party would enact it as one of its first acts on assuming office. So there was certainly no acrimony about the enactment.
It is also worth recalling that a Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) to strengthen section 2(1) of the Act was given an unopposed Second Reading by this House only a few months ago, in the presence of a great many right hon. and hon. Members opposite, including two who are now Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security.
For section 2 of the Act now to be gravely weakened would be regarded as a gross betrayal by disabled people. They would think it irresponsible and inexcusable for us to adjourn until October without pressing the Government to reject the false, inhumane, mean and demeaning economies proposed by the Association of County Councils. One of the central principles of the Act was that an entirely new obligation would be put on local authorities to go out and find chronically sick and disabled people in their areas who could benefit from the provision of social services. That principle is enshrined in section 1(1) of the Act. The association does not suggest the repeal of that subsection. Instead it wants to make the provision of local services discretionary. The only logical conclusion is that social services authorities will be empowered to go out and find disabled people in need and, when they have found them, say "Yes, you certainly do need help with services under the Act, but we will not give them to you unless we feel like doing so". That would be a cruel and cynical course to take in dealing with permanently and substantially handicapped people.
It might, of course, be argued that we live in times of great difficulty for the economy and that, if needs must, everyone must face sacrifices. The Labour Government had their fair share of economic difficulties to resolve, but our policy, as put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), speaking as Prime Minister on 12 March 1974, was that the broadest back must bear the biggest burdens. A memorable statement in support of that policy was made on 15 March 1974 by one of his Cabinet colleagues, who said:
As my right hon. Friend The Prime Minister said the other day, the fact that we are passing through a period of economic stringency and difficulty is all the more reason why we should aim at satisfactory standards of social justice. As he put it, if sacrifices are to be borne, the broadest backs must bear the heaviest sacrifices. Therefore, at this time above any other, we should redistribute income in favour of pensioners, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, (Mrs. Castle) proposes …"— [Official Report, 15 March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 622.]
That statement was made by the present Minister responsible for the disabled, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), who was then Secretary of State

for Education and Science in the Labour Government.
I wholeheartedly agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said then. Does he himself still accept the philosophy that he put to the House only a few short years ago? If he does, he must agree that it would be outrageous for anyone to accept the ACC's proposals for cutbacks in expenditure on the disabled, and the withdrawal of pocket money from people in old people's homes, after a Budget which has given £1,400 million to the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers. Whatever description might be given to that policy, it is certainly not one of making the broadest backs bear the biggest burdens.
There are many other assurances that I should like from the Government before going into recess, not least that they will look urgently again at the very heavy extra mobility costs that have fallen on disabled people who are not helped by Motability and in direct consequence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own policies. I have restricted myself, however, to just one urgent, specific and extremely important question, asking for an assurance from the Leader of the House, who takes a close personal interest in these matters, that the ill-considered and dangerously short-sighted proposals of the ACC are rejected by the Government. It is an assurance that would, I am sure, be more than welcome on both sides of the House.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I hope that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) will forgive me if I follow him on only one subject, namely, his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) for his admirable maiden speech. My hon. Friend did particular credit to his predecessor, Mr. Oscar Murton, whom we all remember with great affection in this place. We look forward very much to hearing my hon. Friend again.
However, I cannot agre with my hon. Friend on one thing, and I hope that the longer he is here the nearer he will come to my position. The proposition advanced by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is, like most propositions advanced by the hon. Gentleman, too extreme by half. I would not mind if we stayed here a week longer, but I do not think


that there is any particular justification for staying a full fortnight longer.
I want to refer in particular to the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I hope we shall hear more about it before we go into recess. So far, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been uncharacteristically guilty of carrying moderation to extreme. The motion may have more than one cause underlying it, but no one seriously disputes, not even the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), that it is basically because of the attitude of the Opposition that it has had to be put down. We would like to know why the Opposition have taken that attitude.
Being a charitable fellow. I will not automatically assume the truth of reports in the capitalist press—I use that term because it is the sort of language that hon. Members opposite understand—of civil war in the Labour Party. We should not automatically assume such stories to be gospel truth. We know how well the members of the Manifesto group and the Tribune group get on together. All of those who see them in the Tea Room know how comradely they are, chatting together, and for all I know even drinking out of the same saucer. So I do not make the assumption that there is no other possible explanation. I therefore put it to my right hon. Friend that there might be another reason for what the Opposition appear to be doing. Indeed, it might command my support.
The Opposition might actually want to sabotage these Select Committees. I would not blame them. I do not think that these Committees are all that they are made out to be. Until we get to the point where the voting of Supply will depend on acceptance by the House of a report of one of its own Committees, we shall he far from giving those Committees real power. Whether we want to go that far, I do not know, but if the Opposition take the view, as I am inclined to do, that Select Committees are no more than a device for finding work for idle hands, I am all for their sabotage.
The situation raises a question which I should like to put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. What are the Select Committee staff doing? From time to time, a number of people

have been employed to service the Committees. The Committees needed staff. But so far as I know the Committees have not done a lot of work since the new Parliament began. They do not appear to have any work to do until Parliament reassembles in October. I do not notice any great queue of unemployed about the place.
What is going on? Who is meeting the bill? How big is the bill? If the Opposition want to go the whole way and make a full contribution to cutting public expenditure, perhaps they would like to say that not merely would they not like to see these Committees set up but that they would like to see the staff laid off as well. Clarification of that would be welcome.
Whilst I am suggesting areas in which the Opposition might like to join in cutting expenditure, I remind my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clitherce (Mr. Waddington) of another matter on which the House took a decision some time ago and which is costing a bit. It is the question of the tribunal on the Crown Agents, which was set up by the House nearly 18 months ago. I do not quite know what has been happening since then, except, I understand, that the tribunal is now providing steady employment for 38 counsel.
I asked the Library to be kind enough to do a small calculation of how much it might cost to hire 38 counsel. It was not an easy question for the Library to answer, but it did its best. It came back with an estimate of about £1,500,000 over two years, which is the sort of time scale we are thinking about. To hire 38 lawyers to flog a dead horse is a waste of £1,500,000. But that, of course, is not all that it is costing, because there are the clerks and the staff, and the space that is needed, and so on. We should perhaps pass on to the tribunal the immortal words of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), who, of course, is again not with us today—"Speed it up". It has to be brought to an early conclusion.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Cut its throat.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman has his own bloodthirsty solutions, but I am a moderate and charitable man.
There are many other matters that other hon. Members would like to stay


here to discuss. We could fill a week of parliamentary time without too much difficulty. But there is one point that worries me a lot. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has argued, whenever he has been pressed by hon. Members that we should not get up quite so soon, that a large number of hon. Members he knows personally have family responsibilities, and that it is up to him to see that they can get away and join their families—the bucket and spade brigade must have their dads.
I do not quarrel with that, but I sometimes wonder whether that argument holds equally true of all hon. Members. My family responsibilities, for example, are, I am happy to say, now earning money, which makes a change. I suggest that for the convenience of the House we might consider in the last fortnight of July the possibility of drawing up a register of dependants, and that those hon. Members able to claim dependants could perhaps be automatically paired in the first week of August while those of us who were old and past it would be able to stay on and carry on the business of government. It might be for the general convenience of the House as a whole if we made that innovation.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Obviously the hon. Gentleman heard my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) speaking about the declaration of interests. Perhaps we should have a register. However, the trouble is that we would not all know what to put in it, would we?

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself. If he does not know who his dependants are and he is ashamed of them or unable to register them, that is his problem and not mine. I shall not go further into that.

Mr. Lewis: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman follows my eyes.

Mr. Onslow: I do not like to ask where the hon. Gentleman is looking. I hope that his look receives a gratifying response.
If we must go when the Leader of the House suggests, I suppose we must. I am sure that we all look forward to resuming. I know that the Opposition would like to have us believe that by that time the picture will be one of unrelieved gloom, and no doubt they are

revelling in the prospect. I do not hold that view. I think that by the time the House reassembles in October we shall find that many changes have taken place and some of them will be very much for the better, that many opportunities will have been recognised rather than seen as changes which are too terrifying for the Opposition to contemplate with their well-known fixed minds, and that we shall have legislation before us to amend the Rent Acts, to change the law on industrial relations and to improve the country's prospects. I wish the Government well in making use of their time during the recess to that end.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I want briefly to refer to three matters which in my view are so important that right hon. and hon. Members should not go away until at least we have had a statement of the Government's intentions.
The first matter concerns the proposed new immigration rules. We were to have had them before the House rose. Now we are told that the new rules may be published as soon as we return after the recess. But if the Government are to take a view on an issue which puts people in jeopardy to the extent that we understand their new rules will, we should have a debate in this House so that, before the new rules are framed, the Government can hear what hon. Members have to say. Any debate on the rules will inevitably be after 10 o'clock for one and a half hours, and the rules will take a form which will make it impossible for hon. Members to table amendments. The House will be asked simply to vote for or against them.
There are many individuals whose applications are in the pipeline at present. They are the foreign husbands of women who are British citizens. It is a position with which the Prime Minister's daughter might become acquainted if she found someone in Australia with whom she wanted to settle down. The people concerned do not know where they are and whether they may stand in jeopardy of being expelled from this country when the Government publish their rules.
As an example, I bring to the attention of the House the case of a constituent of mine who stands in jeopardy


of being deported this weekend. He is Mr. Savvas Christophi. I had discussions about his case with Labour Government Ministers, and I understand that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has taken up the case with the present Home Secretary.
Mr. Christophi is just the sort of man the present Government say they want to encourage. He has built up an important small business in an area of London which is being stripped of employment. He runs a factory in South-East London employing more than 50 workers. That factory will have to close, and the unemployment total will rise by 50 on Sunday of this week if he is deported.
Throughout his stay in Britain, Mr. Christophi made no attempt to avoid detection. He is well known. His name is in the telephone directory. He has never tried to evade anything. He genuinely thought throughout that he had an absolute right to stay here. The Home Office has apparently decided that, because of the way he went about things, he does not have this right.
This is an issue which it is customary to raise in this debate. But we are to have another debate on deportation and the immigration rules tomorrow, when I shall return to this matter if I do not get a satisfactory answer from the Home Office today.
A test case has been prepared, and it is being put into the list of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Government say that for judicial purposes they do not consider that court to be a court within the meaning of the word. In the past, therefore, they have not been willing to hold up deportation cases for that reason alone. But this will be a test case. It has received a great deal of publicity. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been amazed to discover the impact of the immigration rules and the havoc which they can wreak with honest individuals who are trying to help achieve the aims which this Government have set themselves.

Mr. Ronald Bell: How did Mr. Christophi get here?

Mr. Price: He came in 1972, quite legally. He thought that because of the

procedures that he went through to set up his business—indeed, he was given advice to that effect—that put him right. It happened at the same time as the amnesty was granted, and he thought that the amnesty applied to him. At the moment, the Home Office insists that it did not.
In all the circumstances of this case, before this man is deported, I beg the Home Office, both for the reasons that I have advanced and for pure humanitarian considerations, to agree that Mr. Christophi should be allowed to stay. He lives with his common law wife. For technical reasons he is unable to obtain a divorce from his legal wife in Cyprus. He has a child who was born in this country and has a right to stay here. Mr. Christophi would be in a very difficult social position in all the circumstances if he were sent back to Cyprus.
I ask the Minister at present on the Treasury Bench to draw the attention of the Home Office to this matter and see whether the Home Office could not at least have one look at this new case which is being put to the European court before executing the deportation order. If Home Office Ministers were willing to do that, they would give the House some earnest of their intention to show that flexibility about the immigration rules which the present Prime Minister insisted again and again during the election campaign that she would demonstrate. I ask the Minister to get for me some sort of reply from the Home Office as soon as possible. The case is very urgent.
The second matter which I raise concerns the need for this House to clear away some of the problems which arose last year about open government, freedom of information and the Colonel B episode with which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was concerned. This involves the deliberations of the Committee of Privileges. Over this period, the Committee of Privileges produced three reports. There is a tradition in this House that when the Committee of Privileges makes recommendations about changing the practices of this House, which can be done quite easily by means of a resolution, time should be found to do it.
The Privileges Committee has suggested that people should no longer have


to petition this House to be allowed to quote Hansard in court, as has always been thought necessary. The Committee made a specific recommendation about the degree of privilege which this House should afford to newspaper reports. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) will remember that Committee of Privileges. When it started its deliberations, it looked as though it would be a sort of Star Chamber court. But, by the end of its deliberations, it came to some very sensible conclusions. However, there is no point in the Privileges Committee making recommendations unless this House gives effect to them.
I ask the Leader of the House, who was also helpful on that Committee, to read again these recommendations and to bring them before the House so that the whole sub judice issue in the House can be brought much more in line with its application to the press. We should not be faced with the situation in which the press can say and do things and put things on its front pages while we are tied hand and foot in the House.
While on the subject of freedom of information, I would like to raise the important issue of the individual in the Foreign Office who is in charge of vetting information about the Second World War which goes into the Public Record Office. We have justly criticised the Russians for rewriting their textbooks and altering history. But it is now revealed, for the first time, that the individual, Colonel Box-shall, who is in charge of vetting Special Operations Executive matters during the Second World War, out of which grew the SAS and other developments, is 82 years old. I was shocked by this piece of information. If the Government want to take seriously public records and matters that go into the Public Record Office, is it right that this task should be entrusted to the oldest civil servant in the Civil Service?
A letter from the Minister of State Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated that Colonel Boxshall is very valuable because he has a good memory. I am sure that he does have a good memory. But this whole issue arose because one of Britain's most eminent historians, Mr. E. P. Thompson, wanted to find out some information about the circumstances in which his brother was killed in Bulgaria during the Second

World War in an operation that was properly secret at the time. Now, 43 years later, it is unreasonable, when some historian wants to write about what actually did happen, that the Foreign Office should rely on an octogenarian, who, judging by the letters I have seen, has a hopelessly unsatisfactory attitude towards releasing matters for the public record. I ask that the Government should take the matter in hand.
The next issue that I want to raise is the most serious. The public expenditure cuts in the National Health Service will have a drastic impact during the recess. It will be contrary to all the traditions of this House if such decisions are to he taken left, right and centre when Parliament is not sitting. The Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark area health authority meets, I understand, on Monday to try to comply with an impossible demand made by the Government about how it should cut its budget.
It is forcast that the Sydenham Children's hospital, in my constituency, will have to be closed in the course of the next few weeks without any alternative paediatric arrangements being made. It is a well-known London children's hospital. It is used by hundreds of my constituents. I am sure that almost every hon. Member will face this sort of situation. If it is impossible for them to call Ministers to account, because the House is in recess, it will be a scandal.
Equally scandalous is a letter I received recently from the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, who asked if I would stop writing to him about these Health Service matters and write instead to my area health authority. It is disgraceful, at a time when the budgets of area health authorities are being slashed to pieces, that this sort of letter should emanate from Ministries. I have replied, saying plainly that I shall continue to write to the Secretary of State for Social Services to make him fulfil his responsibilities regarding public expenditure to the House. If the Sydenham Children's hospital closes, not only I but hundreds of my constituents will be writing to the Secretary of State.
I am told that the Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark area health authority may decide that it does not wish to accede to the demands made of it, that it intends


to maintain the level of services in South-East London and that the Minister can answer for the money. With the crisis of cuts in public expenditure on our hands and the possibility of certain area health authorities defying the Minister—they have a duty to protect the level of services as well as trying to meet cash limits—it would be a scandal if, during August, September and October, the Secretary of State was not available to stand at the Dispatch Box and answer for the situation.
For that reason, I am sure that we should stay longer to enable a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Social Services about the impact—in terms of closures of hospitals, old people's homes and other institutions—of these cuts in the next few weeks.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I do not believe that the House should adjourn for the Summer Recess until we have discussed the very bad trade figures announced recently and the failure of many of our factories to produce the products that we need. The problem of failing to produce in this country is not new. For the last 100 years we have been falling slowly behind our competitors in manufacturing industry. This may be part of the penalty that we have to pay for being first in the Industial Revolution of 200 years ago. But the problem has got dramatically worse since the 1950s.
Demand for industrial products is still strong, but the supply is missing. Hence the huge flood of imports, not only from EEC countries but other European States such as Sweden, and also from the United States and Japan and the rapidly rising new countries of the Far East, Taiwan and Korea. Anyone with eyes to see should realise this state of affairs from the number of foreign cars and lorries on our roads and the multiplicity of goods in our shops, household appliances, textiles, fashion goods, china, glass and hardware and even foreign food. There is almost a fetish now for buying foreign products. The solgan "British made" seems no longer to carry the high prestige it once possessed.
The serious nature of this failure to produce in our country is to some extent

hidden from ordinary people because of the receipts from North Sea oil. I should like the Government to publish the oil receipts to see how much goes towards the deficit in Government expenditure, how much is used in financing our daily lives and how much is being saved or put into new capital investment, including energy saving. If Ministers cannot make a statement on this serious state of affairs today or tomorrow, it is a subject on which they should speak constantly, up and down the country, during the recess, to warn people of the dire situation in which we find ourselves.
We need a Marshal Foch to co-ordinate our efforts in the factories and to say "Everyone to his war" or "Everyone to the factory bench." We need prestige awards to workers in factories on the lines of those to Heroes of the Soviet Union. Young people need their imagination fired. Our educational system and our careers advisory service need overhauling, so that industry and commerce can get a better share of the best young people who at the moment tend to go into the Civil Service, the City or the professions.
I recently attended a course at Windsor Castle among industrialists, educationists, church leaders and members of the Armed Forces. It was no surprise to me that the most outstanding men there were the three generals. They had the qualities of leadership, they had been staff college trained, they were excellent communicators and, of course, they looked the part. It is people like those that we need in charge of great enterprises. [Laughter.] I cannot see why that should be a matter for amusement to hon. Members opposite.
Prince Charles touched on this subject recently when he criticised some aspects of British management. The key to productive efficiency in our factories lies to a great extent with the foremen who deal with the workers making the products. In the old days, the foreman was a respected figure, with his bowler hat, his gold watch chain and the power to hire and fire. Today he is a pale reflection of that, outranked on one side by the shop steward and on the other by the personnel officer.
One has only to compare the foreman in industry with his exact counterparts in the Services—the warrant officer and the NCO, who are highly trained, motivated


and respected—to realise how industry falls down. Middle management too often lacks the required leadership, drive and inspiration.
Trade union leaders cannot escape some blame. Their job is to look after their members' real interests and concern themselves less with politics. They should certainly spur managements to become more efficient, in the interests of their members.
The Labour Government did not help by concentrating too much on trying to save dead jobs instead of creating new ones and the climate in which they could be created. There was also vast public expenditure, which the present Government are trying to curb. The cuts of which we have heard so much are not in present expenditure but in expenditure planned by the last Government.
Far too many people are employed in the public sector and the Civil Service; we hope that more of them will move to the manufacturing sector, thereby increasing the real national wealth. In industry, we have for too long been obsessed with techniques instead of with flesh and blood, with organisation instead of with leadership.
There is still a great need to put everybody into the picture. In certain big factories I know, even today, however good the top management, the people in the factories do not know what is going on.
Much depends on the tax changes in the Budget. We hope and believe that they will make everyone work harder, whether he be factory floor man, chargehand, foreman, manager, director or chairman.

Mr. Rooker: Where have you been?

Mr. Stokes: I have been all my life in industry since the war, as the hon. Member probably knows. Furthermore, in the enterprises with which I was connected, people knew what the object was and they were all successful.
Reduction of taxes will not only encourage people in our factories; it will also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) said in his admirable maiden speech, encourage our export salesmen to get more of the orders which the country requires.
The key to greater production in the big firms depends on new machinery and

on using our plant and equipment to the full, but the main role in reducing unemployment will be that of the small firms and the self-employed. They are the people who will take the risks, the entrepreneurs who will improve the situation in Glasgow, Merseyside, Newcastle and other areas which have been depressed for so long. These individuals may need to be helped even more than by tax changes—for instance, with more assistance from the banking sector.
We shall have a difficult time over the next few months, and to ensure the fastest possible take-up we must give all possible help to the self-employed and small businesses. All Government policies must be tailored to that end. They, more than anyone else, are the people who can save this country.
However, in the end, Governments cannot make people work. People must do it for themselves. That is the challenge facing this old nation. Somehow, those who were defeated in war, who endured awful suffering, pulled themselves up, exerted themselves and made tremendous strides. Perhaps we were exhausted, perhaps we temporarily lost the will, but there can be no other way forward. Either we must work for our salvation or we cannot survive. The right leadership is required at every level, not only from the House and from the Government but from managers, directors, schoolmasters, dons and all people of influence.
We face a much more serious situation than hon. Members realise. No amount of oil money will save us. If we cannot produce the ordinary products that people require in this country, let alone for export, we have no future. That is the supremely important matter facing the country.
I have spoken many times about national morale—and we certainly need to improve it. These matters are of the utmost gravity. We do not have more than a few years in which to turn ourselves around, to change attitudes. From the young to the old, we must work or die.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I trust that the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments. I believe that Marshal


Foch and the hon. Gentleman's other heroes should be allowed to rest in peace.
However, I am at one with the hon. Member in supporting the amendment. We should certainly devote more parliamentary time to considering the impact of the Government's regional aid strategy.
I am reinforced in that view by a report in the Manchester Evening News. The distinguished parliamentary and political correspondent of that newspaper recorded his experience at a press conference held by the Secretary of State for Industry. The Secretary of State had arranged the press conference to explain the Government's regional aid strategy. Mr Andrew Roth, for the Manchester Evening News, asked the Secretary of State what impact the Government's proposals were likely to have on the Greater Manchester area. The Secretary of State turned to a civil servant and asked "What have we done to Manchester?"
All my hon. Friends who represent Manchester area constituencies can help the civil servant to answer that question. Our area is reeling from two blows delivered by this Government. The first blow was the withdrawal of intermediate area status from Manchester. The second was the Secretary of State for Industry's statement about the National Enterprise Board.
Great industrial enterprises in Manchester and the Greater Manchester area are anxious about what the Secretary of State for Industry proposes for the National Enterprise Board and the companies in which the NEB has major investments.
Manchester will also be directly affected by the withdrawal of intermediate area status. Building grants of 20 per cent. on all new manufacturing premises in the city will be phased out. No further factory building will be undertaken by the Government after 1982.
Selective financial assistance to firms creating new manufacturing jobs, usually in the form of loans at concessionary rates or interest relief grants, will disappear. New offices and service industry grants, of between £1,000 and £2,000 for each job created by a firm moving into Manchester from a non-assisted area, will disappear. Key worker grants and allocations will be phased out.
Losing intermediate area status means that Manchester is no longer recognised as a deprived area by the European Community. It is, therefore, ineligible for any benefits from the European regional fund.
How can the Secretary of State for Industry reconcile that with a policy which specifically gives Manchester appreciable financial support to help with the problems of inner city deprivation? There is a glaring contradiction between the two policies. It is as if the right hand of the Government does not know what the left hand is doing.
Manchester's entitlement to priority for grant aid under the European social fund will be lost. This means that grants will not be available for the training and retraining of workers. The city's entitlement to borrow from the European Investment Bank will be severely curtailed.
Derelict land grants are anchored to intermediate area status. The Greater Manchester area has large pockets of derelict land because that is where the Industrial Revolution really began. There is a great deal of industrial dereliction. Yet a question mark now hangs over whether the city will qualify for a derelict land grant.
The basis of the withdrawal of intermediate area status is the travel-to-work area classification imposed by the Department of Employment for the collection of unemployment statistics The travel-to-work area unemployment statistics have been used to determine whether the area qualifies for intermediate area status. The Manchester travel-to-work area includes the more prosperous areas of the conurbation, and that masks the high unemployment rate in the city itself.
The problems of Greater Manchester now appear to be as serious as those of Merseyside. Inner Manchester lost more jobs in absolute and percentage terms between 1966 and 1975 than inner Merseyside. The discrepancy in regional aid given to Merseyside and Greater Manchester is no longer valid. If Merseyside should have special development area status on the basis of job loss, so should Greater Manchester.
The Secretary of State for Industry should look at the criteria. He should consider whether the decision should be


made on the basis of the travel-to-work area unemployment rate or its job loss. He should certainly take into account the fact that Manchester has experienced a major deterioration in employment prospects.
Manchester's case is irrefutable. Its difficulties are structural: they do not arise out of performance. Greater Manchester is better able to benefit from regional assistance than Merseyside. The Government have fallen into the trap of using the broad brush approach. Do they really believe in the special problems of the inner cities? If they do, there is no question but that Manchester should retain its intermediate area status. In the coming months, my hon. Friends representing the Manchester area will be paying close attention to the impact and effects in Manchester of the Government's policies.
We want a review of the Government's decision to withdraw intermediate area status from Manchester. The Secretary of State for Industry should come to Manchester and meet those who will suffer as a consequence of his policies. He should talk to those who are striving for the economic well-being of an area which has contributed so much not only to the industrial history but also to the prosperity of Britain.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) because we both come from the North-West and he is one of my constituents. I agree that Manchester is an important industrial part of the United Kingdom. The city of Manchester in particular has many structural problems which will take some time to put right. Substantial funds will be required.
I do not join the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw in his criticism of the Government for seeking to rationalise regional aid in Britain and remove some of the anomalies. My constituency of Macclesfield has lost the intermediate area status which was granted to it by the last Conservative Government. Macclesfield now falls into the same category as Manchester. I am pleased that my constituency has the lowest level of unemployed in the North-West. I seek in my representations to the Government

to ensure that that position is maintained, and that the number of unemployed—which is still too high—is reduced.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem is much greater in the Manchester area than in Macclesfield?

Mr. Winterton: I do not entirely agree, because Macclesfield probably started its industrial revolution at the same time as Manchester, and we have many infra-structural problems in Macclesfield. Quite by coincidence, a sewer collapsed in Oxford Road in Macclesfield while at the same time a sewer collapsed in Oxford Street, Manchester. Many of those services, which are vital to the community and to the success of development in the area, were built at roughly the same time. Macclesfield, although a shire town, has many problems in common with Manchester. I am not unsympathetic to the case advanced by the right hon. Gentleman.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) for his excellent maiden speech. My hon. Friend said that his predecessor, Mr. Oscar Murton, had been respected in the House and had always shown considerable understanding and compassion. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole has certainly shown an understanding of his area and of those whom he represents. He will be listened to with interest whenever he participates in debates.
The first matter I raise is of considerable importance to the textile industry. It is outward processing, which involves the dispatch of fabrics from one country to another for making up and reimport as a finished garment. It includes, for instance, the dispatch of yarns for knitting into sweaters. The practice is widely followed in Germany, not only in the textile and clothing industry.
The United Kingdom undertakes an appreciable quantity of outward processing with Cyprus, and, to a lesser extent, Malta. There is also some outward processing trade with other countries. In various discussions about outward processing with United Kingdom Government officials, Comitextil and others, the British Textile Confederation—an organisation representing many individual and corporate interests within the textile industry


—has stressed that outward processing is a legitimate commercial practice. It stresses, however, that it must be carried out within normal quotas.
The textile industry has opposed extending outward processing beyond normal trade quotas for four reasons. Firstly, additional quota allocations for outward processed products create additional imports, and so erode the clothing textile regime. Secondly, the extension of out-ward processing leads to an outward processed garment replacing a home-manufactured garment. That garment then represents an export of jobs from Britain. As we have heard from several Labour Members, we can ill afford to export jobs now.
Thirdly, this process may also represent the export of manufacturing knowhow, because of the need to maintain manufacturing standards. Fourthly, the more skill in manufacturing clothing that other countries acquire, the greater the risk that those countries will extend their activities upstream into textile production to create their own fabric supplies.
Earlier this year the EEC decided to introduce outward processing allocations for Portugal and Greece, despite the United Kingdom's opposition. They will be in addition to the quotas—or, more strictly, the indicated limits—for normal trade agreed with those two countries. Those allocations were put on offer to the members of the European Economic Community. The United Kingdom declined to bid for any of them for the reasons I have given. They are all good reasons and should be noted.
The outward processing trade with Portugal and Greece and with any other Mediterranean associated countries was to be conducted within the terms of a Community regulation which at present is in draft form only. That is one of the reasons why I raise the subject, and I hope that the Government will give an answer before the recess.
Outward processed products returning to the EEC enjoy free circulation—that is, they may move from one EEC country to another without restriction. That freedom is strongly contested by the United Kingdom. The textile industry was recently informed that the Commis-

sion proposed that member States should be invited to take up the unallocated balances on the burden-sharing formula. The proportion of the balance would be held frozen in the individual countries until September, and any unclaimed balances would then be offered to any member State wishing to apply for them. Information on the balances on offer to the United Kingdom is available to those seeking it.
I seek certain assurances from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I seek on behalf of the textile industry the assurance that the EEC regulation should restrict outward processing to genuine manufacturers using fabric of EEC origin, limiting such operations to a proportion of their normal output. It should provide for the licensing of outward processing operations by member States.
The present draft is deficient in one major respect. The definition of "manufacturer" is so wide that non-manufacturers would qualify for outward processing licences. There are other deficiencies, but I shall not delay the House further. Our approach to the question of outward processing must be largely determined by the context of the final EEC regulation or any supplementary United Kingdom regulation which it may authorise.
I understand that there is a difference of view between member States about the outward processing draft regulation, which applies only to the Mediterranean associates. If that draft regulation is approved, it could no doubt be extended to other countries because of the precedent of outward processing arrangements. The differences are so great that it seems possible that no agreement will be reached on the regulation, even though the outward processing allocations were introduced by the Commission with the assurance that there would be a regulation to guide countries.
If there is no regulation, or just a milk and water regulation, it is essential that the United Kingdom should press for a complete review of the Community's outward processing policy. Without a satisfactory regulation, there must be no separate and additional outward processing allocations. Instead, all outward processing traffic should be counted against normal trade quotas or limits. I raise the issue now because the Commission


requires a reply from the Government in September about the allocation or non-allocation of a proportion of the outward processed balances which have been put to the United Kingdom.
Bearing in mind that the matter is of considerable significance to a strategic industry that employs about 800,000 and that this one breach of what we consider to be orderly marketing could result in many tens of thousands being put out of their jobs over the next few years, I hope that the Government in negotiating with our European colleagues will ensure that the interests of the textile industry are taken fully into account.
The second matter, on which I shall be brief, relates to my constituency and expenditure on roads. To some extent I am taking up the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Openshaw. Much of the future industrial development in my area depends upon the construction of a major north-south road. A considerable amount of land that could be used for industrial and commercial expansion is now blighted because the line of the north-south relief road in Macclesfield is not known. Despite valiant efforts by the local authority to obtain the cooperation and support of the Ministry of Transport and its North-West regional office to try to get a joint participation exercise under way, little help, support or co-operation has been forthcoming.
The Government are deeply concerned about employment, even in the areas that have lost their intermediate area status, such as mine. However, I hope that the message that I am giving to my right hon. Friend will be transmitted to the right quarter—namely, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, so that he may get in touch with his office in the North-West to ensure that the requests made by the Macclesfield borough council are dealt with speedily by his Ministry to ensure that industry is not deterred from coming to Macclesfield.
I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that Maclesfield has a fine work force with an excellent reputation. Macclesfield can provide fine housing and some of the finest countryside in the United Kingdom. There is no point in industry seeking to come to Macclesfield if sites that could fulfil a useful purpose and could be developed with a view to

providing employment are blighted by road proposals, the line of which has not been finalised because of lack of co-operation on the part of the Ministry of Transport.
I shall not be opposing the Adjournment motion. Members of Parliament can usefully spend more time in their constituencies ascertaining what is going on. The Summer Recess is an ideal time for that job.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has said, I believe that the House should not adjourn until the implications of a constituency case of mine have been fully digested by the Government and until the Government have considered the procedures that relate to the handling of those accused of being illegal immigrants.
I cite the case of Abdul Azad, who was aged 12 years when his mother and father brought him to the United Kingdom. He lived with them in a terraced house in Oldham and studied for three years in a school in Oldham. Like many other Bengalis in that town, when he grew up he worked long hours to keep the cotton industry going. He led a normal life until 4 October 1978, when a disaster occurred. The police came to his factory and told him that his mother had been found dead in a pool of blood. Although it was immediately obvious that he was innocent of the murder, the police kept him imprisoned for 10 days and made him sign a statement under duress that he was an illegal immigrant. It was only at that stage that they permitted him to meet his father and to see his solicitor.
Abdul was detained without trial for a further twelve and half weeks at Risley remand centre. It was only through the efforts of friends and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and to some extent through my own efforts, that he was finaly allowed bail. The threat of deportation was still held over him. That threat remained for nearly 10 months. I am pleased to say, and to acknowledge readily, that that threat has now been lifted. Prior to the debate I was informed by the Home Office that the decision has been taken to permit Abdul to stay in this country. After


such an immensely long period of suspense, I am glad that that is the outcome. However, that does not expunge the nature of the procedures to which alleged illegal immigrants are subject and which I believe this case reveals are in need of urgent reform. That is why I have raised the matter today before the House goes into the Summer Recess.
I turn to what is alleged to have happened in Oldham police station on and after 4 October 1978. I quote from a letter that Abdul has sent to the chief constable dated 22 June 1979. The letter states:
The complaints are as follows:

1. They kept me for eight days in the police station.
2. They did not tell me what my legal rights are.
3. They did not allow me to see my father and brother for six days.
4. They did not let me see a solicitor for nine days.
5. They forced me to sign statements that I did not understand.
6. They beat me up, threatened me and said that they would kill me and made me scared.
7. They did not let me have any food or drink for at least 24 hours."

It may be said that physical maltreatment is completely different from alleged illegal immigration. However, I submit that those who have been given a status that deprives them of legal rights—namely, illegal immigrant—are much more likely to be mistreated. Had a white boy received the treatment that was meted out to Abdul, there would have been an immediate national outcry.
I shall specify in more detail what happened to Abdul. On 6 October he was collected by the police and taken to Oldham police station. Neither he nor his father was informed of the reason for that. They were both in a state of serious shock and distress as a result of the murder. Abdul states that the police put to him that he had entered the country illegally and that he was not the son of the persons with whom he had lived all his life as his parents. He claims that he strenuously denied these allegations. He further states that he was verbally insulted and physically assaulted by police officers while at the police station and given no food for over 24 hours. It was in a condition of acute fear and dis-

tress that on 9 October he signed a statement admitting that he had entered Britain illegally.
I assume that the statement was used as evidence of the illegality of his immigrant status, but I submit that it is most unlikely that any court would regard it as proper evidence. First, he was denied access to legal advice. He was not allowed to see his father before signing the statement. He was not cautioned and the interpreter employed by the police was a Pakistani who spoke no Bengali and whom Mr. Azad could not understand, Furthermore, the form of words contained in the statement is most unlikely to be Mr. Azad's. The word "bogus" appears in the statement, and that is not within his vocabulary. The statement has subsequently been retracted.
Secondly, I refer to the handling of the evidence of his alleged illegal entry. On the evidence that has been obtained since the release of this youth following his second period of detention at the Risley remand centre, it can be reasonably assumed that he is either the legitimate or illegitimate son of the man he believes to be his father.
On that basis and as other evidence was produced which satisfied the entry clearance officer that he was the dependant of a parent legally entitled to be settled in this country, he would have been entitled to admission. There is no evidence as to any deception practised prior to his entry. It would surely have been right at the outset to confirm that he should remain in Britain as of right. Yet the threat of his being removed from Britain and dumped in Pakistan 7,000 miles away, where he had neither family nor friends, in the wake of the murder of his mother, was held over him for almost 10 months.
Thirdly, there is the question whether the blood tests, which I believe feature in a number of such cases, should normally be accorded what I would regard as the spuriously definitive authority that they seem to have been given in this case. His own solicitor disputed the validity of the Home Office blood test. The most important point in this case is that irrespective of what the blood tests showed, he was regarded, and was certainly treated, as the son of the family, not only in his own eyes and those of his parents but in


those of his friends and the local community. As a son he enjoyed the rights and accepted the obligations of that position. He completed his education in this country and worked in a local mill to help support his father and younger brother. Both he and his father led impeccable lives in this country and showed themselves to be thoroughly useful and industrious citizens. He had a record of employment which, prior to his arrest, was continuous. The cost of his detention, the series of examinations, the blood tests and the time taken up by the Home Office and other officials since his arrest must undoubtedly be considerable.
I ask: to what end was that done? How does it benefit this country to prove that one boy is, in our terms, not the child of the couple whom he has grown to regard as his parents? Frankly, what real difference—even if that were true—in human terms, does it make?
Finally, there are the implications of the legal entitlements, or perhaps I should say disentitlements, of alleged illegal immigrants which, as this case illustrates, urgently need changing. At no time was Abdul Azad brought to trial, because under the Immigration Act 1971 the authorities are not obliged to try any case of a suspected illegal immigrant. The accused can even be deported without seeing a solicitor. Although the law of England has said for centuries that people should not be imprisoned without trial—and this is enshrined in the habeas corpus Acts—immigrants are not protected by that law. I therefore submit that the procedures as to the legal rights or otherwise of suspected illegal immigrants should be changed in the following ways and that this is not a matter that should wait over the course of the long recess.
First, in no circumstances should such people be subject to intimidation so as to secure a confession. Secondly, they should not be deported without first being given access to a solicitor. Thirdly, they should be brought within the provisions of the habeas corpus Acts, so that they are not subject to imprisonment without trial. Fourthly, they should have a right to stand trial before a court and their fate should not be determined at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
Those serious matters require urgent action because of the large number of cases to which, no doubt, the present rules

—or perhaps I should say the absence of rules—will apply in the next few months while Parliament is not sitting.
I ask the Leader of the House to give an assurance that this matter will be looked at urgently by the Government so that persons accused of being illegal immigrants—especially those who have long been resident in this country—should, irrespective—I stress this—of whatever final decision is correctly, properly and legally taken in their case, be given proper protection under the law and accorded proper legal rights until the decision is taken.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: I seek brieflly to raise a House of Commons matter. I hope therefore that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will forgive me if I do not follow him in what he will accept was wholly a constituency matter, which was perfectly properly raised.
I wish to refer to the matter raised at the start of this debate by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). I am sorry that he is not in his place. He will forgive my speaking in his absence. He was wrong to imply that not many Members of Parliament were long convinced of the view that there had been such a development in financial relationships outside the House that it was good for the cleanness of the House that there should be a register of Members' interests. My own record in this matter is known. I do not need to develop it on this occasion. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right in principle.
I have always argued that it is not possible for a Member of Parliament, for example, secretly to be a director of a company. I am a director. It is not possible for a Member of Parliament secretly to be a member of a learned profession. I am a member of such a profession. Those facts must and should he properly ascertained in the appropriate places.
Over the years, as Parliament under all Governments has progressively and increasingly interfered in the affairs of companies, persons and commercial organisations, these people and these bodies have increasingly equipped themselves to deal with this situation by appointing hon. Members, perfectly fairly, as their advisers in one sense or another.
Again, perfectly openly and for many years past, I have been a political adviser to one organisation which undertakes that work. I have always thought that that development was one which could not be ascertained anywhere, which was not registerable anywhere but which should, perfectly properly, be disclosed. The hon. Member for Keighley was right. Such matters should be disclosed for all to see. However, I strongly resented that inference in his speech which seemed to me to be that any Member of Parliament with outside interests—whatever the side of the House on which he sat—was thereby, in himself, somewhat unclean. That seems to me to be a very low view to take of one's colleagues in the House. That was buttressed by an especially graceless reference to Lord Lever of Manchester. When the hon. Gentleman comes to reflect, he will see that that reference did not do justice to the noble Lord.
I am firmly of the view that the register is important. Here I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. In the judgment of myself and that of many hon. Members, a most unsatisfactory situation has now been reached. As a result of the actions of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), that register has not been published for a considerable time. In accordance with the normal courtesies of the House I gave notice to the right hon. Gentleman that I would make this reference. Characteristically, he drew my attention to the place in the Official Report where his argument is set out. I refreshed my mind on the matter last night. In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, who cannot be here, I should point out that his arguments why it is not proper for him to comply with a resolution of the House are contained in the Official Report, 12 June 1975 at column 745.
When I read the argument I was reminded of the comment often made about the right hon. Gentleman in years gone by—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman has the finest mind in the House of Commons until it is made up. I think that that remark is well sustained by his argument.
I regret that the previous Parliament, by resolution, decided that we should all be asked to file certain information with

the registrar. We were informed that every Member of Parliament did so, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman. The members of the Select Committee were so fed up with the inactivity of the then Leader of the House and others involved that they refused to carry on with the work. The result was that for some time, although the then Leader of the House constantly reminded me, either in correspondence or on the Floor of the House, that anyone could go and look, the register was never subsequently printed and published.
Now, however, in this House, with a number of newly elected Members on both sides—happily more joining on these Benches than on the Opposition Benches—there is no way, as I understand it, that we can find out about these matters, at least in printed form. Quite frankly, I think that what the hon. Member for Keighley said was right—I did not expect to find myself agreeing with him—when he said that, in conditions which are unhappily different and when in fairly recent years we have had one or two most unfortunate episodes, not confined to one side of the House, it would be good for the general standard of the House that we should have this register on the record once again.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House what he, in his highly responsible role, intends to do about the matter. I take it that we shall now see the Select Committee at work. If the Select Committee asks him to process the necessary regulation by way of the House's own discipline. I should like to be quite sure that he will do so.
As the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) knows—I warned him that I should make this reference—I am afraid that I entertain the darkest suspicions that in the last Parliament, owing to the very close voting position, the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to upset the right hon. Member for Down, South. I see that the right hon. Gentleman denies that. All right, so be it that is all in the past. But that situation does not apply now. We are under no obligation to the right hon. Member for Down, South and I hope that the House will now he able to proceed.
I shall illustrate by a recent experience of mine why this action is necessary. On a recent Thursday night I was


handed in some urgency a letter from a company—I have its headed notepaper with me—called Sallingbury Limited, which trades in Victoria Street, Westminster. The company asked me to table an amendment to the Finance Bill in relation to private education on behalf of an unnamed client.
That is not an activity that I care for very much. I took no immediate action. Whereupon I was bombarded—I think that in my Northern Ireland days I should have said "harassed", which was the phrase used there—by the managing director, a Major-General N. St. G. Gribbon. That gentleman proceeded to badger me in every possible way—on the telephone, by appearing in the Lobby, and the rest of it. What the gentleman did not know was that I happened to hear his crisp instructions to my research assistant when I was in the room. I took very grave exception indeed to that kind of approach.
I ascertained from this gentleman that his client was British Petroleum. What is British Petroleum doing employing a firm called Sallingbury Limited, whose headed notepaper gives not the smallest idea of what activity that company is engaged in? Is British Petroleum too grand to write to me if it feels that I have some service to perform for it, and which I would happily do, or is it too busy? It has never bothered with me or noticed me. Why should it? I do not blame it. I have never been asked to lunch, for a drink, or received a letter from that company, but quite suddenly I had some use, apparently, in tabling an amendment to an important Bill. But British Petroleum did not bother to handle the matter itself—it is much too grand and too busy for that. It did it through an agent.
If I wanted to find out, which I did, whether that firm employs an hon. Member as its parliamentary adviser, which it would be perfectly entitled to do, as the position stands I am unable to discover whether any of my colleagues on either side are advising it. I regard that as a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs, and a most unstraightforward way of behaving.

Mr. Rooker: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I did not wish to interrupt the important example that he has given to the House.

However, before he gave that example he made a remark about the actions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot). He said that in this Parliament, because there is a big majority, it does not matter about one right hon. or hon. Member. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, at the present time, six weeks after the closing date when hon. Members had to register their interests, 30 have not returned their forms?
I do not know from which side of the House these hon. Members come. One has to assume that they may be evenly split. But it may well be that, because of the well-known propensity for business interests to Members on the Government Benches, the majority of them are the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. The matter is not one of insignificance, whereas it might have been thought to be insignificant if it were still only the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) who was concerned.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I think that the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood me. I was, when speaking about one hon. Member, referring to the last Parliament. I concede perfectly freely that, until he gave me that information, I did not know that there were so many of our colleagues who, apparently, have not completed these pieces of information. To be perfectly frank, I am not entirely surprised. Owing to the inactivity of the previous Leader of the House, the register has fallen into such disrepute that I am not surprised that hon. Members do not feel that it is a matter that should be urgently dealt with. I take a different view, and I have expressed that view and do not need to go into the matter further.
However, I think that I ought to warn the hon. Gentleman that he must not for one moment assume that the business activities of the sort that I have in mind are confined to only one side of the House. If we are to engage in that sort of operation I shall be very happy to enter into it, to his discomfiture.
In conclusion, I simply ask that the new Leader of the House, armed with the full authority that he has, and ardent in his duties as I know him to be, will be so good as to give close and immediate attention to this matter. I believe that


action on the lines that I have indicated is long overdue.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Cox: I wish to speak this evening on the subject of Cyprus. I do so because of the long historical association of Britain with Cyprus, the fact that we still have military bases on the island, and because, I am sad to say, no Minister has yet visited the island since the election.
The tragedy of present-day Cyprus started with the Turkish invasion in 1974. Five years have passed since then, and the suffering and injustice that the Greek Cypriots on that island are now facing—while it may be forgotten in the minds of some—is, I am sorry to say, still something that the Greek Cypriots have to live with day by day.
Following the Turkish invasion, about 40 per cent. of Cyprus was occupied by the Turkish army, and it is still occupied. Greek Cypriots were forced from their homes against their will, and those homes have now been occupied, according to information that I have, by some 50,000 people from mainland Turkey. They have been brought to Cyprus by the Turkish authorities as settlers, are now registered and have identity cards that have been issued by the Turkish authorities. They have now called that part of the island the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus.
A plan is under way by the Turkish authorities completely to change the Greek character of Cyprus. The names of villages, towns and streets have been changed into Turkish. What were formerly Greek churches have now become mosques, and other Greek churches have been deliberately destroyed by the Turkish authorities. All the attempts by the United Nations to bring some satisfactory conclusion to the sad events in Cyprus of the last five years have met with a total rejection by the Turkish authorities.
United Nations resolution No. 3212 of 1974 mentioned four specific points. These were respect for the independence, the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus, the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the territory of the republic, the safe return of all refugees to their homes, and respect for the human rights of all Cypriots, include-

ing tracing and accounting for those missing.
I am sorry to say that absolutely nothing has happened in response to that resolution. The Turkish army is still in Cyprus. Not an inch of the lands that it occupies—and it is occupied, because Cyprus does not belong to Turkey—has been given back to the Greek Cypriot people who for many centuries have lived on that island. Not one refugee has been allowed to return to what was his home. Tragically, the repeated attempts which have been made particularly by the United Nations, by the Greek Cypriot authorities and by the Greek authorities to find the people who have been missing since the invasion have met with a total refusal by the Turkish authorities to co-operate.
Will the Leader of the House say whether it is still the attitude of the Government, as of the previous Government, fully to support the United Nations resolution on Cyprus? What is the attitude of the Government to discussions between Greece and Turkey to try to formulate a basis for the reunification of Cyprus? What is being done by our representatives in the EEC to start to put pressure on the Turkish authorities? I am sorry to say that the lack of action in starting to rebuild Cyprus so that both Greek and Turkish Cypriots can live together in peace and harmony is without doubt due to the lack of will on the part of the Turkish authorities and to their obstruction.
I do not think that anyone will dispute that the problems of Cyprus will not go away. The Greek Cypriot people do not intend to go on living as they have been forced to live for the last five years. They believe that they have a right to return to their own homes. They believe that they have a right to call for the withdrawal of the Turkish army from their island.
I accept that I have asked the Leader of the House some very detailed points. We are about to start on a recess of three months. That will mean that the issue will not be discussed in the House during that time. In view of this and of the extreme urgency of the matter, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that my comments will be conveyed to the Lord Privy Seal, and that he in turn will seek to reply to them in detail?

7.14 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfeder: I fully support the arguments of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) in proposing that the House should not adjourn until 14 August. In view of the short time available to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not pursue his arguments, except to say that I endorse everything he said.
I hope that when the Leader of the House replies he will guarantee that the Committee dealing with Members' interests will be made into a meaningful one.
I am absolutely convinced that the House should not adjourn tomorrow for such a long recess, bearing in mind that between now and 22 October many innocent people will have been slaughtered or mutilated in Northern Ireland. For almost three months the Ulster people will have to suffer acutely and agonisingly, and in no way will their elected representatives be able to refer on the Floor of the House to the horrors to which they are exposed and subjected. Before this House adjourns, the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to a clear and absolute assurance from the Leader of the House that the war against the Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army will be continued by the Government and the security forces with the utmost vigour.
Last night the Government introduced a measure, which was passed by the House, proscribing the Irish National Liberation Army. It will do nothing to stop the activity of that organisation. It will have perhaps only one benefit, and that is to prevent the BBC from televising another interview with the murderers of our former colleague, Airey Neave. The Government should take it from me that the people of Ulster are not impressed by such measures on their own. The proscription of the Provisional IRA did nothing to hamper the activities of that evil organisation.
What is appalling, in the tenth year of the Provisional IRA's campaign of death and destruction, is that there are fewer soldiers to be seen operating on the ground throughout the Province. I believe that there are fewer soldiers operating today in Northern Ireland than there were a few years ago under the previous Government and under the vigorous direction of the right hon. Mem-

ber for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). For example, on several occasions when the police called on the Army for assistance in the Falls Road area of Belfast, the Army said that it could not provide that assistance for the police and that the police could go about their business of restoring law and order.
I accuse the Government of pussyfooting on security. I hope that the Government will now, through the Leader of the House, be able to reassure the Ulster people as they face three months when the House will be in recess and as they face death and destruction at the hands of the Provisional IRA.
The Labour Government increased the number of SAS men operating in Northern Ireland, particularly in the border areas, where innocent people had been murdered. I understand that the number of SAS men in Northern Ireland has been drastically reduced, although it is difficult to get any information about this. That is an indictment of a Government who have declared their intention of restoring order throughout the United Kingdom, and in particular in Northern Ireland. It must call into question the Government's determination to destroy this evil organisation.
I accept fully that the Army must get assistance from other sources. It must get assistance from the Irish Republic. It is disgraceful that the Irish Republic has not been able to provide the full-hearted support that it should give to the security forces in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that the Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army are linked with other international terrorist bodies whose aim is the destruction of democratic rule in Western European countries and elsewhere. It should be in the interests of everyone—not only member nations of NATO, but countries in the Common Market and elsewhere—to defeat these terrorist organisations.
The terrorist organisations will not be effectively defeated until there is total determination by the Government of Eire to wipe out the Provisional IRA. The half-hearted measures of the Government of Eire are aimed largely at convincing the world that they are doing their best, in embassies all over the world, to say that the fault lies with the Westminster Government and not with the Dublin Government. I believe that it is up to


the Government to refute that emphatically.
Not so long ago the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made an appeal to the Government of Eire, asking them to allow the RUC to interrogate terrorist suspects who were arrested in the Irish Republic and detained by the police. I think that it speaks volumes when we hear of the flat refusal of the Dublin Government to give that assistance to the RUC. It would have been in the interests of law and order in both countries.
We need vigorous measures from the Government. I hope that the Leader of the House, instead of giving us flowery language, will be able to give us concrete assurances that the Government will make an all-out effort to protect the people of Ulster from the gunmen and bombers in Northern Ireland.
I return to what the hon. Member for Keighley said earlier. We must ensure that the Committee on Members' interests is not just a charade but something that will enable people to see what interests various hon. Members represent.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I hope that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) will forgive me if I do not take up the points he made about Northern Ireland. I should like to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who raised the subject of Cyprus.
I visited Cyprus as a member of the European parliamentary delegation. We submitted to the Turkish authorities a list of 2,000 missing persons, all of whom had been alive at the end of hostilities in Cyprus. The Turkish authorities promised faithfully that they would set up a committee to inquire into the whereabouts of those missing persons. Not one word has been heard since then.
The relatives and friends of those 2,000 people live a nightmare life. They do not know what has happened to their relatives. Therefore, I support strongly the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting, who suggested to the Leader of the House that perhaps the question of Cyprus could be considered at the Commonwealth conference, in addition to that of Africa and Rhodesia. After all,

Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth and deserves some support from us.
Half the population of Cyprus are exiles in their own country. They have lost everything and the whole country is unable to develop its resources, and the beauty of the island, without some new initiative which should come from this Government.
Unfortunately, we have always held on to the coat tails of America, expecting that country to solve the problems of the Middle East and Cyprus. It is time a British initiative was taken with regard to the Middle East and Cyprus.
The main purpose of my intervention in this debate is connected with a constituency matter. A month ago Wolverhampton metropolitan borough council submitted a report to the Secretary of State for Industry entitled
Submission to the Government on the effect on Wolverhampton's Economy of the closure of Bilston Steel Works and other Plants.
I followed up this report with the Minister concerned and asked for a meeting with representatives of the local council. Just half an hour ago I received an acknowledgment that the Government had received that document.
During the last decade 25,000 jobs have been lost in Wolverhampton. In Bilston, which is part of my constituency, with the closure of the steelworks unemployment will double. Yet we have never had any proper consideration of the future of that plant.
There have been other closures in the area. Most recently Stankey's Plastics factory closed with the loss of 650 jobs. Another 1,000 jobs have been lost in Goodyear Rubber. Another 1,000 jobs will disappear, as if they never existed, at the Ever-Ready factory. In the Wolverhampton area 200 firms have closed down during the last decade.
Wolverhampton, once a very prosperous area, with workers of great skill and technicians of great ability and new ideas, now faces the fact that parts of it will become a wilderness of despair with thousands of our people denied the right to work. They feel like criminals and outcasts. There is nowhere that they can fit in and play a constuctive part in society.
The modest demand of Wolverhampton council was that the area should be given special status. That does not seem to me an outrageous demand. If special area status were given to Wolverhampton, it would be entitled to submit schemes to the European Community and make some claim on the social fund. It would be able to borrow money from the European Investment Bank under very favourable conditions.
If Wolverhampton does not get special status, it will be denied those necessary facilities. Therefore, I believe that I am entitled, on the last day but one of this parliamentary term, to receive some consideration from the Government on this important document which was submitted by the council. All I have had is a letter that I nicked un half an hour ago acknowledging receipt.
I ask the Leader of the House—who, I notice, is not listening—to draw the report I have mentioned to the attention of the Secretary of State for Industry. It is a matter of urgency to many hundreds of thousands of people in the West Midlands and is of particular importance to the workers in my constituency.
The British Steel Corporation has, in my estimation, been wrong about the way it has planned the steel industry. It sent a deputation to Japan to study technology in nine plants producing 10 million tons of steel a year. The Corporation thought that that would be the pattern for Britain, but all the evidence from America and Japan has proved that that was wrong.
Many steel plants were very successful in supplying local needs and now they are to be closed. We want new technology in the Bilston steel plant, but that does not exist in this country, according to the British Steel Corporation. That technology has already been established in France, Sweden and America. The tragedy is that the most successful modern plant in Sweden, based on new steel technology, was built by a British firm in Stockton. We supplied the new technology, but we have not even got it in our own steel industry.
I should like to dwell on this subject at greater length, but I do not wish to abuse the opportunity I have had to say a few words in this debate.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I want to be brief. Therefore, I shall not follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards), except to say that I shall refer to the British Steel Corporation in a moment. Before I go on, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on an excellent maiden speech and say that, like the rest of the House, I hope to hear him often.
I want to raise a couple of points in relation to the British Steel Corporation. I have taken the opportunity of warning the Minister that I would raise these points, and also of informing the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), because one of the plants to which I wish to refer is Shotton.
Both at Shotton in Wales and at Corby in Northampton, which is adjacent to my constituency, there is the danger—nay, the certainty—of the loss of many thousands of jobs in the imminent future. I feel that it is quite wrong for this House to consider going on a long Summer Recess lasting 12 weeks when the future of the steel workers at Corby and Shotton is so undetermined.
I shall not deal with Shotton, because that is the responsibility of the hon. Member for Flint, East. However, I should like to say one thing, which is that I was disappointed with the attitude of the British Steel Corporation when I wrote to the chairman, Sir Charles Villiers, a couple of months ago with regard to the sale of 5,000 acres of land at Shotton. The custom is that if a Member of Parliament writes to the chairman of a nationalised industry, he at least gets a reply. However, I had no reply from Sir Charles. Instead, I received a reply from the Welsh divisional manager. I asked about the disposal of 5,000 acres of BSC land at Shotton and asked Sir Charles to assure me that this land had been offered for sale publicly, and not conducted privately, and to notify me for my records what the price was.
I was unable to obtain that information. I then approached the Secretary of State for Industry, and again I was unable to obtain the information from him.
I feel very strongly that when a nationalised concern is disposing of any area


of land—never mind 5,000 acres—it has a duty to provide the necessary information to a Member of Parliament who requests it. After all, a private firm engaged in such a sale would be questioned by its shareholders, and to a certain extent I suppose that we are shareholders, or representatives of BSC, in this House. Be it one acre or 5,000 acres, I believe it to be totally wrong that I as a Member of Parliament should be told in the letter that I received from my hon. Friend the Minister of State that this sale accords with BSC procedures, that it was not appropriate to tell me what the price was but that he had taken advice and understood that the price was fair.
I wanted to record that objection, because I do not believe that Members of Parliament who make these inquiries should be treated in this cavalier manner. After all, 5,000 acres of State land were sold to a private buyer in a private deal, the details of which will not be disclosed to me as a Member of Parliament. I strongly deplore that.
I turn briefly to Corby, which is on the south-eastern boundary of my constituency. I want to say how concerned we in Leicestershire are about the problems that Corby faces. About 5,000 to 7,000 jobs will come to an end within 12 months. I do not think it right that the House of Commons should break up for a 12-week recess without a care in the world, or without spending at least a little time in exploring the possibilities of providing work, not only for Shotton but for the thousands of workers at Corby whose jobs are about to come to an end.
Being a neighbouring Member of Parliament, I have been in close touch with the situation at Corby. There does not seem the slightest doubt that the iron and steel making process is outdated and would be very expensive to update. Assuming that the BSC decision to close down the steel-making capacity at Corby is correct, the very least that the Government must do is to take immediate steps to ensure that the 5,000 or 6,000 people who will lose their jobs have alternative employment.
I urge my right hon. Friend to pass on a message to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry that

Corby must not be closed, and those 5,000 or 6,000 jobs ended, without the town and the area first being declared a special development area. I do not want that to happen when those people are out of jobs. I want it declared now. It is a possibility. There is no reason why an interested Government should not take this action now rather than wait until this personal, human tragedy has occurred. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell the Secretary of State for Industry that the East Midlands economic planning council strongly advocates this view as well and feels that Corby should be made a special development area today, before the hatchet falls and not after.
I hope that I have stressed that I think we would be well employed in spending at least a day or two longer at Westminster.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Winker: I shall be extremely brief. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) raised a substantial point when he talked about the BSC land deal. I am sometimes accused of being the sort of person who sees a conspiracy around every corner. I think that is a bit unfair. But that deal poses the question whether it has been done secretly. For example, we are not able to check whether friends or relatives of members of the main board or subsidiary boards are involved in the deal. The hon. Gentleman did not pose that question. All I am saying is that such a question comes to mind. It is a legitimate interest for an elected representative of the shareholders of BSC.
It is doubly outrageous that the chairman of a nationalised industry should not reply to a Member of Parliament, because he does not own the industry. It is not his private property. Chairmen are not appointed by this House. We have no check on them, and when they are appointed they then become a law unto themselves. The chairmen of the nationalised industries must be brought to book. The Leader of the House would do well to take cognisance of the pressure in this House for more accountability and more involvement by hon. Members in the appointment of chairmen and deputy chairmen of nationalised industry boards. That is the sort of


example that springs to mind. The question raised by the hon. Member for Harborough is an excellent example, because a substantial land deal is involved. I hope that the hon. Member will receive a decent and considered reply, and likewise my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). If they do not, I shall have no alternative but to join them in the Lobby if the amendment is pressed to a Division.
I wish to raise two points. The first concerns the National Health Service. It is quite outrageous that we should consider a 12-week recess without a debate on the recently published report of the Royal Commission on the Health Service. In the words of the Secretary of State, the Government's avowed intention is to "denationalise the Health Service". That is what he said on the ITN "News at Ten" programme.
I have with me the report by the financial officers of the West Midlands regional health authority, which states that the Health Service faces a grave financial situation in the current financial year. An extra £100 million of expenditure has to be met, which did not have to be met before 3 May—£40 million because of the higher rate of VAT, £24 million because of the extra contribution towards the higher pay awards and £36 million for fuel and other price rises. This £100 million forecast is greater than the total NHS development addition for 1979–80. Therefore, under this Government there is a cut in NHS expenditure, in strict contradiction to what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign. It is outrageous that we should consider going away for a long recess before the matter is thrashed out in a full debate, possibly lasting two days.
I want to know the answer to the same question as the members of the regional health authority in the West Midlands asked. Will the 1980–81 cash limit be based on the actual pay and price levels during 1979–80? That is a crucial matter. Clearly, the real effect of pay and prices this year is being fully met within the cash limits. Therefore, there is a cut in real resources going to the NHS. Next year's cash limits must be based on something. What will that be? Will it be this year's cash limits or the real cost this year, which

will be far greater than the cash limits laid down by the previous Government?
If there are to be in 1980–81 the cash limits based on this year's cash limits plus a small addition, there will be a further cut in NHS expenditure in the next financial year, in addition to that which is taking place in this financial year.
My second point concerns what some hon. Members might consider to be a rather mundane matter. It is not mundane in the sense of numbers of people affected, but it is not a substantial national or international issue, although it is important. I refer to accidents involving members of the public, particularly small children, travelling on escalators. In 1969 there was a public outcry, which led to questions and debate on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House were firing off parliamentary questions, there were Adjournment debates, and there were campaigns outside the House to secure better accident prevention equipment for escalators.
In Birmingham early this year a young girl aged four was trepped on a departmental store escalator for more than an hour. She subsequently underwent five major operations, and at one time there was a threat of an amputation. She will walk with a limp for the rest of her life.
It has now come to light, because of the actions of the girl's father, Mr. John Lloyd, that there was no proper reporting of the accident by the company concerned. There was nothing wrong with the escalator. No one was breaking the law. But we discovered, 10 years after the big campaign of 1969, in which the Home Office and the Department of Employment took an interest, that accidents to the public on escalators, whether in subways or large departmental stores, are not reportable under safety legislation. No record is kept. We do not know how many accidents there are. Therefore, those who wish to lobby for a change in the law to make provision safer do not know the scale of the problem.
Mr. Lloyd tells me that since he raised the matter through the British Safety Council he has received dozens of letters from parents all over the country whose children have suffered accidents—not all so serious as that suffered by his daughter—travelling on escalators in stores.
There is no law governing the safety of escalators, which by definition have moving parts and therefore are as dangerous as any piece of equipment in a factory. What will the Government do about the matter? I have today received an answer from one of the junior Department of Employment Ministers, the one who did not turn up at the Dispatch Box the other night. He says that new regulations regarding notification of accidents and dangerous occurrences, on which consultation has been taking place for some time, will be published soon, but they will relate only to work activities.
I hope that we shall not go into recess, so that we may debate the effect on the general public, who are not involved in work activities. More and more in city centres, particularly in Birmingham, the public are shoved underground into places like rabbit warrens to get them out of the way of the car, and they are forced to travel on escalators. The Minister tells me that there is no possibility of the Government introducing
further legislation to make accidents on escalators specifically reportable.
Parents of young children are warned day in and day out not to let their children travel on escalators. They are warned to make sure that, if the children do go on escalators, they are not wearing wellingtons or soft shoes. They are told not to take animals or wheelchairs on escalators. The parents want action.
When accidents do occur, they are not reportable. Secondly, there is no legislation governing this matter, which affects many hundreds of thousands of people and not simply a few people who are involved in accidents.
What will the Government do? I expect a substantial reply from the Leader of the House, similar in style to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) when he was Leader of the House, dealing with similar motions. My right hon. Friend took meticulous notes and answered every speech in great detail. I am sure that the new Leader of the House will try to do so in his first reply to such a debate—

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Second.

Mr. Rooker: The other did not count, for various reasons. It was not like today's. We face a 12-week recess, not a two-week holiday, including the European direct elections. This is not quite the same thing.
For a quarter of the year the Government will not be accountable to the House. Members of Parliament will not be able effectively to table questions, ask for Adjournment debates and seek to put private notice questions. This is our last opportunity.
I hope that we shall receive a substantial reply to all our points, particularly those concerning the British Steel Corporation and British Petroleum and the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: My hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) have proved by their illustrations that there is still plenty of business for the House to transact. Nobody can deny that their case is strong, as is the case made by several other hon. Members. There is a whole crowd of issues that needs to be examined. I cannot tell my hon. Friends that if they carry the matter to a vote, as they are entitled to do, I shall necessarily support them, but I have great sympathy with the views that they have expressed
If the motion is carried and the House departs for the recess in accordance with the dates suggested, the Opposition will certainly watch closely to ensure that if it is necessary for the House to be recalled we make representations to that effect. We trust that if those representations are made the Government will listen to them. But I fear, such are the actions of the present Government, that it would take us much more than even the period allowed so generously by my hon. Friends for us to debate these matters and deal with them satisfactorily.
I shall not refer to every subject that has been mentioned, not because I do not think that important matters have been raised on both sides of the House but because I think that it would be tedious. I shall refer to one or two matters which I believe that it is proper for the House to debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) raised the question of the reports of the Select Committee of Privileges and the prospect of a debate on them. I entirely agree with what he said. 'I believe that those reports are important. The Committee went into matters in the greatest detail. The atmosphere was very different when we came to the end of our reports than it was during our discussion in the House when they were referred to the Committee. Therefore, I believe that it is important that the whole House should take note of the Committee's conclusions, reached after detailed investigation. I think that the reports can help us in the future. Therefore, I hope that we shall have an undertaking that when we return we shall have a full debate on the reports.
It is also right to debate the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and some other hon. Members, on the register of Members' interests. I know that there is concern in different parts of the House about these matters. The proper way to deal with them is to have a debate. Then we can express our views. Different views may be expressed and there will be the opportunity for proper argument. The matter cannot be satisfactorily concluded on a motion for the Adjournment.
I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on his maiden speech. I do so with special eagerness because of the association that some of us had over many years with his predecessor. In my capacity in the last Parliament I had a special association with him because of his position in the Chair, and all the greater is my recollection of the contribution that he made to the House.
I had an especially soft spot for him, because when I was introducing the Second Reading of the Bill for the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 I referred to a trigger-happy member of Her Majesty's bench of judges. Some hon. Members thought that it was out of order for me to refer to one of Her Majesty's judges in that way, and I see that that mistaken view is still held by at least one Conservative Member. I am happy to abide by the verdict of the Chair at that time, and it was precisely because Oscar Murton thought that I was in order that ever since I have believed that I was. No

hon. Member was entitled to contest it then, and if any hon. Member does so now I invite him to look up that debate.
Our timetable was hopelessly jammed earlier this week and it is hopelessly jammed again today. That is partly because of the flood of Government statements, statements that are so grievous and injurious to the nation that the Government have to be cross-examined by hon. Members with the utmost care. There is no doubt a whole store of other measures that the Government have in mind that they have not even brought to the House. There are certain matters on which I urge the Government to undertake not to act until we return when we can cross-examine on them. Major matters of public expenditure come within that category, but a whole series of people may be affected if some of the other measures talked of, particularly in the Conservative newspapers, are carried through.
To give an example, there were headlines in the newspapers today to the effect that the Government would engage in further big cuts in foreign student grants. That is shocking, and the Government should certainly come to the House and tell us about these before they embark on them.
There is then the question of the Government's attitude about the representations made to the right hon. Gentleman by those who work in the theatre. They are concerned about the doubling of VAT and the consequent effects on the London theatre and the entertainment industry throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman has sought to escape from that matter by saying that the Labour Government did not abolish VAT on theatre tickets. We may not have abolished it but we did not double it. Surely the representations from those in the theatre have proved to the right hon. Gentleman that he has inflicted a serious injury on theatres in this country, and I hope that he will comment further on the subject.
The big cuts may be among the major issues to be debated in the House, but there is a vast series of minor cuts—minor because of the total amount of money involved—already in operation or contemplated by the Government which will inflict grievous injury on one British institution after another.
During Question Time the right hon. Gentleman made a most inapposite remark when he said that the previous Government were in some respects a philistine Government. I deny any such charge, and I say to him in more agreeable terms that he looks a little out of place in that Cabinet of suburban barbarians. I can give instance after instance to back up that description.
There are the proposed cuts of £4 million in the overseas service of the BBC. There was a report in The Guardian a a day or two ago that the manager of the external services of the BBC had asked the Foreign Secretary which of three possibilities he would choose to cut. We can either cut the BBC services to Western and Southern Europe and Latin America, to Iran, India, the Middle East, South-East Asia, China, Japan and Vietnam in six languages, or South-East Europe in eight languages and all the Arabic countries—and I have not read out the full list in each category. I gather that the facts are not questioned by the Foreign Office or the Government, and if the £4 million cut were to be carried out one of those three major services would he detroyed. It is hardly possible to conceive a more senseless activity for this country to engage in.
The greatest and most precious asset that this country has, and one that may be our salvation in years to come, is the English language. I say nothing about the BBC's domestic service—we all have criticisms there—and I do not say that the foreign service is perfect, but since the 1940s the BBC has provided an incomparably better service than any other country. Moreover, the elaboration of what we can put out in such services is of enormous benefit to this country in every possible way. The only conceivable way to make a case that may appeal to the Prime Minister is on profit and loss accounting, and even on the commercial test one of this country's greatest assets as a trading nation is that more and more people throughout the world are speaking English—and at such a moment the so-called patriotic Conservative Government are proposing to cut these services.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise

the House whether he has his facts right? The world service of the BBC deals with what he rightly calls that precious asset of the English language, but surely most of the cuts refer to the external services that are related to the vernacular.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) has not followed the point. The facts are all there in the report. It is not only a question of whether the BBC broadcasts in English. The hon. Gentleman worked previously for the Foreign Office and that is no doubt why he has it all wrong now, and I suppose that he is rallying to the defence of the Foreign Office, which is engaging in these absurd cuts. The broadcasts are in a series of different languages but also in English.

Mr. Whitney: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has not extracted anything. He has belatedly woken up to the truth, and he should apply his mind to whether he is in favour of the cuts. I believe that it would be a disgrace for the Government to proceed with that £4 million cut. When the right hon. Gentleman replies, I hope that he will give an undertaking that the cuts will not be made at least until the House has had the chance to decide whether it is an intelligent step to take. We should not proceed on the basis that the test of a Minister's virility is how eager he is to cut particular services.
I could give dozens more examples and keep the House going on the matter for many hours, but I have no intention of doing so. However, when the House returns, we shall put these matters to the Government in the strongest possible terms. In the meantime, I think that we must accept the motion. When we return we shall ensure that the country as a whole knows what the Government are doing. I ask the right hon. Gentleman for the undertakings for which my hon. Friends have asked, and particularly on the special point that I have raised. I urge the Government not to proceed with these cuts, which they have so far not presented to the House, until they have obtained the sanction and approval of the House for them.

8 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I express my appreciation of what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) has said, particularly of his undertaking—I take it to be so—that he will not divide the House on the motion. I take it from that that he is not as anxious to sit into August as some hon. Members are. I myself would be happy to sit here permanently. The House of Commons is rather like a drug—the more one has of it, the more one requires. I am always very happy, on the very few occasions I go out to dinner these days, to return here. It gives me an excuse for leaving some dull official gathering to come back here and be reinvigorated by the debates and the final speeches.
I have been exhorted to reply to all the points raised in the debate. They cover a vast range of subjects, and I do not think that I would be believed if I presented myself as an expert on all of them. I will do my best, within the limited amount of time I have and within my limited range of ability. At an rate, I am sure that that approach will command more general assent.
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on his excellent maiden speech and express my appreciation of his choice of this debate in which to make it.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) started the debate by calling for the House to sit until 14 August. He is one of the most assiduous Members in attendance. I do not think that I have ever been here without his being here. Perhaps on the occasions I am not here, he is not here either. I wonder what we would have done if the election had gone the other way in Keighley and his seat, which he held by such a narrow majority, had gone to the Conservative candidate or to some other party. There would certainly have been a great gap among those who sit on the Front Bench below the Gangway.
Whilst I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument about sitting on until 14 August, I must point out to him that the length of this coming recess is well within the normal range. It is 86 days in all. In 1978, for example, the Summer Recess was 81 days and in 1977 it was 88.

On average the length of the Summer Recess has been about 75 days over the last few years, so there is not a great deal of difference between the two sides of the House on the matter.
I have been doing some research. I have gone back over the last 15 years. There I stopped, because I felt that the point had been established. The hon. Gentleman will understand why I could not spend more time on the matter. We have not sat to 14th August at any time in the last 15 years, so what he is suggesting—and perhaps it is not unsuitable to him—is a revolutionary procedure.
The second important point raised by the hon. Gentleman concerned Members' interests. He put forward the view, which he is well known to hold, that every Member should have no outside interests. That is a point of view, and one can argue it, but I believe that the view of most hon. Members is that we should preserve a balance between full-time and part-time Members, between full-time occupation here and additional occupation outside, because the House benefits from having the experience of Members who are engaged in occupations other than parliamentary work. I believe that the level of the salary should be such that Members have a choice as to which role they will play.
I turn now to the question of the register of Members' interests raised by the hon. Member for Keighley and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). My hon. Friend was in correspondence with my predecessor as Leader of the House and has now initiated a correspondence with me. I point out that those Members who want to see the register brought up to date, published and so on should reflect that the best way to facilitate that is to encourage or facilitate the appointment of the relevant Committee. Until that Committee has been appointed, we are unable to make further progress in this matter.
In the first instance, it will be for the new Select Committee on Members' interests to advise the House of what, if any, action should be taken to enforce the 1975 resolution if the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) or any other Members refuse to register their interests. That is a matter for them. Of course, it may be suggested that legislation should be introduced compelling


Members to register their interests. That must be a matter for the House, and it would alter the decision taken when the House last considered this matter fully, when legislation of a compulsory character was rejected.
It will also be for the Select Committee when appointed to consider the question of public access to the new register. Following the dissolution of the last Parliament, the register of the interests of Members of that Parliament was not accessible to the public and it was in the custody of the registrar. The new Select Committee will no doubt wish to consider arrangements for the public to have access to the new register, and the Committee may, unlike its predecessor, agree to a general publication of the register by the Stationery Office despite any failure on behalf of one or more Members to register their interests. But that is a matter for the new Committee. I will bring to it attention what has been said in the debate when it is appointed, but it is not a matter on which I can comment further at this stage.

Mr. Rooker: Mr. Rooker rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have a great many important points to reply to. Usually I give way very readily, but I must consider the other business of the House and those other hon. Members who are waiting to speak tonight.

Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Gentleman has misled the House.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If I have, it was not intentional and we could have another debate on that.
The third point raised by the hon. Member for Keighley was an important constituency point about the Airedale trunk road. The A650-A629 Airedale road will be the subject of a public inquiry which I understand will probably take place early next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole was especially concerned with export services. The Government grasp fully the importance of the exporting community to the country's economic recovery. We think that the best way to help exporters is by providing the right climate for profitable initiative, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend's recent Budget is a step in that direction. I note

my hon. Friend's comments about the commercial role of our Diplomatic Service staff and on the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I am sure that he will agree that the commercial involvement of our embassies has improved greatly in recent years, and we all welcome it. I should point out that the ECGD handles about 4,000 applications for cover every week and that it is only in a tiny minority of cases that complaints arise. However, I shall make sure that my colleagues are aware of my hon. Friend's remarks.
I turn to the matter raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about the future of the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and the effect that certain suggestions by the Association of County Councils may have on the operation of that Act. The whole House knows the work of the right hon. Gentleman in this area. He was kind enough to refer to my own involvement in the matter which arises from a constituency interest where I have an excellent DIG branch. We have made remarkable progress in this sphere in the past few years, though I am the first to acknowledge that there is a great deal further to go before we can be satisfied with the provision being made.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has made it clear that he expects local authorities to give priority to those most in need. He hopes that any cuts in services affecting disabled people will be minimal. He cannot guarantee absolutely that such people will not be affected at all by the revisions in expenditure being undertaken by the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) raised in characteristic vein a number of matters. I hope that his exhortations to speed up the work of the Crown Agents inquiry will be heeded. It is a major work and therefore there is a great deal of logic in saying that those involved should go faster in order eventually to come to an end of their inquiry whilst some of us are still around to appreciate the conclusions.
I share my hon. Friend's concern about the future of the Select Committees. He asked what the staff were doing. They are doing what they can. They are preparing themselves for their tasks when


they are able to carry them out. If they are not occupied fully in this, I think that the responsibility rests not upon them but upon us because we have not yet succeeded in setting up the Committees.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) raised a number of important matters. I refer particularly to what he said about the nationality Bill and the immigration rules. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is preparing new nationality legislation for introduction as soon as possible. He is also considering as a matter of great urgency changes in the immigration rules. It has not, however, proved possible to work out the details of the rules in the short period available to the Government between the general election and the Summer Recess. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to agree that for matters as delicate and important as this it is vital to get the rules right rather than to have anomalies built into them. But an announcement will be made on these rules as soon as possible after the recess.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to the specific cases of two of his constituents and to the problems which Mr. Christophi and Miss Tryfonos face. The hon. Gentleman is always assiduous in taking up constituency cases. I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to help him on this one. The appeals which they have made have been dismissed by the appellate authorities. The current position is that the couple are due to leave the country on deportation on 28 July. I am sorry to have to give the hon. Gentleman such a disappointing reply.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) asked about the removal of the intermediate status from Manchester. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend came to his decision in the light of the objectives which he outlined in his statement on 17 July, namely, to concentrate assistance on areas most in need to make it more cost effective and to remove anomalies in the assisted area gradings.
I turn to the important matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about outward processing and the important north-south road. On the outward processing textiles point which he raised, the Government recognise the complexity of the

problem. They will ensure that close contact is maintained with the industry and endeavour to see that its interests are safeguarded. Our efforts in this direction will be intensified following my hon. Friend's remarks in this debate.
As for the north-south road, I understand that my hon. Friend will be seeking to raise the matter later tonight during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I am happy to tell him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will seek to give him a full reply. However, should the subject not be reached in the course of tonight's debate, or if by chance my hon. Friend's stamina should flag, my right hon. Friend will write to him on the matter in full.
I turn to the case raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I am grateful to him for giving me notice of his intention to raise it. I know his concern about the case of Abdul Azad, and I have seen his early-day motion. The Minister's decision on the matter has now been communicated to the hon. Gentleman, and the general issues which he raised will also be considered. I hope that there will be a fuller opportunity to consider the complicated issues which are raised in this case. But in all these immigration cases where human considerations are involved it is essential that we proceed with firmness for the general law but realising also the difficulties which individuals face in these cases.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) asked about Cyprus. He was kind enough to suggest that I might convey what he said to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, who clearly has more up-to-date and expert knowledge on this matter than I do. However, the talks which began on 15 June have been adjourned by the United Nations following difficulties over the Turkish-Cypriot demands for commitments on bi-zonality and security. There are political problems in Turkey which seem likely to hamper progress. The United Nations is likely to suggest that the talks should not be reconvened until the autumn.
The Government welcomed the resumption of the intercommunal negotiations under United Nations auspices on 15 June. It is those negotiations which offer the best chance for progress. Statesmanship and a spirit of compromise will be


needed from both sides if progress is to be made towards a just and lasting settlement. The moderate and enlightened interest that the hon. Gentleman has taken in this difficult and complicated matter is a contribution towards a solution of the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) raised the question of the security situation in Northern Ireland. There have been a number of serious terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland during the last two months. The Government have completed a review of anti-terrorist operations and have announced that they will be seeking fresh progress in three areas. Special attention is to be given to the border areas of Northern Ireland. Financial resources will be found to meet any additional needs of the security forces and the present intelligence gathering effort is being intensified. The Government's policy remains to defeat terrorism and to extend the pattern of normal policing throughout Northern Ireland.
I turn to the questions that were raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards), who also expressed an interest in Cyprus—a point that I hope I have covered. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about steel closures, especially at Bilston. The future of individual plants is a matter for the British Steel Corporation. The Government expect the Corporation to operate efficiently and commercially in the interests of the taxpayer, the work force and those of other industries dependent on steel. It is not for the Government to make decisions about individual plants in the light of these considerations, consulting the trade unions as appropriate. That applies to the plant in the hon. Gentleman's constituency as well as to those at Shotton and Corby.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was also concerned about the steel mills. I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry the remarks made by my hon. Friend. The question of the sale of land in the Dee estuary was also raised. This is a matter on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has a particular expertise, although I understand that the procedure followed has been the normal one for sales of this nature. It is a matter

primarily for the commercial judgment of the British Steel Corporation. But my right hon. Friend will look again at the matter in the light of what has been said.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), in raising a number of important points, mentioned the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. That report, as he knows, is long and contains 117 individual recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has already indicated the Government's preliminary reaction in his statement to the House on 18 July and urgent consideration has begun of the report's many recommendations. That will continue throughout the recess.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of cash limits and the relationship between the 1980–81 cash limits and the cash limits of 1979–80. It is an interesting question. I am interested in the answer myself. A decision on this important matter has not yet been taken. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole public expenditure review is proceeding and has not yet been completed.
The hon. Gentleman raised the further question of the safety of escalators. That is a technical problem, as he will recognise. Perhaps the best service I can do is to draw the important points he has made to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to see what further action needs to be taken to improve safety.

Mr. Cryer: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he answer my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and give an assurance that he will recall the House if these issues burgeon forth during the recess and if, for example, accusations are made against various Members? I mentioned a report in The Guardian and the matter has also been raised by other hon. Members. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that in those circumstances he will recall the House before 22 October for important debates to take place?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I can, of course, assure the House that if an emergency of sufficient gravity arises the Government will consider the powers that they possess to recall the House under the relevant Standing Order. I could not give


a guarantee in the terms that the hon. Gentleman wants because it is a matter for the Government.
Finally—I will not say last but by no means least—I come to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. We are proceeding in the ecclesiastical order of precedence with the greatest at the end. With regard to the Committee of Privileges and its most interesting report, I will certainly look at the matter with a view to having a debate. That was the point raised by the hon. Member for Perry Barr—no, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, who played such a key role. I recognise the difference between the two hon. Members, but a certain amount of confusion can arise for both have a certain terrier-like zeal in pursuing a point. Once they have their teeth into anything, it is difficult to get them out again.
With regard to the spate of policies and statements about which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale complained, I would point out that this is a radical Government. We are attempting a very great task, namely, to turn Britain round from a course of decline and impoverishment back on the road to prosperity. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the public expenditure White Paper will be published in the autumn ahead of the dates that were normally followed by the Labour Government and that there will be an early chance to debate its proposals.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern for the theatre. I agree that the British theatre is one of our greatest literary glories and achievements. It faces a great number of problems. Not all of them are to do with VAT, but a problem does exist on that matter, and I acknowledge it. There are problems of patronage. In these months, it is a dropping off of the tourist trade which has caused the problem.
But no hon. Member can be indifferent to the future of the theatre. I certainly am not, and within the parameters of collective responsibility, a constitutional doctrine to which I fully subscribe, I assure

the right hon. Gentleman that the interests of the British theatre will be kept under consideration by the Government and that its representations will be heard.

Mr. Foot: Does that sentence mean that the other barbarians would not agree with the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman must place his own exegesis on my words. I thank him for what I took to be a commendation, when he described my colleagues as "suburban barbarians". I shall certainly pass on that description with no exegesis of any kind. I note that I am exempted from the description. I do not know whether to be pleased or aggrieved. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is exempting me from the adjective or the noun or both.
I agree that the English language is one of our greatest instruments for influence in the world. If power has gone from us in the sense of the nineteenth century, the power to influence the world is still there and the great medium for that is the English language. That a tongue spoken by a few thousand islanders on a fog-encrusted island in the North Sea should have become the international language of the world is an extraordinary achievement and we should take full advantage of it.
I have done my best in the time allotted to me to answer the points raised. I do not claim that everybody has been satisfied, but I have done what I can to live up to the standards set by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.

Mr. Reg Race: Mr. Reg Race (Wood Green) rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 144.

Division No. 82]
AYES
[8.31 p.m.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
George, Bruce
Lamond, James


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Dobson, Frank
Haynes, David
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kerr, Russell
O'Halloran, Michael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kilfedder, James A.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)




Race, Reg
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Richardson, Miss Jo
Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Rooker, J. W.
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. John Maxton.


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)






NOES


Alexander, Richard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Ancram, Michael
Greenway, Harry
Parkinson, Cecil


Aspinwall, Jack
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Grylis, Michael
Pawsey, James


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren
Penhaligon, David


Bell, Ronald
Hayhoe, Barney
Pollock, Alexander


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Heddle, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Henderson, Barry
Raison, Timothy


Best, Keith
Hill, James
Rhodes James, Robert


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Blackburn, John
Hooson, Tom
Rossi, Hugh


Blaker, Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Jessel, Toby
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Jopling, Michael
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Kershaw, Anthony
Silvester, Fred


Braine, Sir Bernard
Knox, David
Sims, Roger


Bright, Graham
Lang, Ian
Speed, Keith


Brinton, Timothy
Lawrence, Ivan
Speller, Tony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sproat, Iain


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanbrook, Ivor


Butcher, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stevens, Martin


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stradling Thomas J.


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lyell, Nicholas
Tebbit, Norman


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McCrindle, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Macfarlane, Neil
Thompson, Donald


Channon, Paul
MacGregor, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Chapman, Sydney
Major, John
Thornton, George


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Marland, Paul
Trotter, Neville


Clark, William (Croydon South)
Marlow, Antony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mather, Carol
Viggers, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waddington, David


Cope, John
Mellor, David
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Costain, A. P.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Cranborne, Viscount
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Ward, John


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Watson, John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Mitchell. David (Basingstoke)
Wells, P. Bowen (Hert'fd&amp;Stev'nage)


Dover, Denshore
Moate, Roger
Wheeler, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Whitney, Raymond


Eggar, Timothy
Murphy, Christopher
Wickenden, Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Myles, David
Wilkinson, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Neale, Gerrard
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Faith, Mrs. Sheila
Needham, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Nelson, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Neubert, Michael
Younger, Rt Hon George


Fookes, Miss Janet
Newton, Tony



Fox, Marcus
Normanton, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Onslow, Cranley
Sir William Elliott and


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Garel-Jones, Tristan

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, at its rising tomorrow, this House do adjourn till Monday 22 October and that this House shall not adjourn tomorrow until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of Bills of aids and supplies, more than one stage of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — FISHING INDUSTRY

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising the vital topic of the future of the British fishing industry. Several of my hon. Friends have pointed out that my constituency, although beautiful, has no seaboard and no fishing fleet. However, I am not entirely a fish out of water as previously I represented a constituency with fishing interests. During the period that I represented that constituency, I occasionally spent long evenings at sea in small trawlers learning at first hand the problems that face all those who work in that industry.
The question of the British fishing industry goes far beyond the specialist interests which many of my hon. Friends will no doubt mention. There is public concern about the future of the fishing industry, and I share that concern. I do so, first, because the fishing industry is an integral and important part of the Scottish economy. Like other industries in Scotland, that industry is regarded as a symbol of the economic prosperity and success of Scotland. Secondly, the fish caught constitute a vital food source for the people of Britain.
I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—whom I am delighted to see will reply to this important debate—a number of questions that are in the minds of Scottish people.
First, will my right hon. Friend report on the progress that is being made by the Government in Europe in their attempts to safeguard the industry, especially on the safeguards that they are trying to achieve for Scotland? I have been pleased to read indications in the

newspapers and elsewhere that the Government are not prepared to accept piecemeal solutions to the problem from Europe and are seeking to achieve package that will effectively secure the future of the industry. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us certain reassurances in that respect.
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend explain to those members of the public and those lay Members of the House who do not have specialist fishing interests what measures he is considering to protect the fish stock around our coast? That is important to those who work in the industry, and generally important because fish is a vital food resource. I am sure that my right hon. Friend realises, as do many of my constituents, that fish is affected almost more than any other food commodity by supply and demand. When there are shortages of fish stocks, or when fewer fish are being caught, the price of fish can vary remarkably. As it is a basic food stock, conservation measures and measures taken to stabilise the number of fish caught are vital in the interests of housewives.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will say a few words about the measures that are being taken to prevent industrial fishing and the use of illegal net sizes, which have caused havoc to fishing stocks in the past.
Thirdly, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider safety. It is a matter of concern to the British people when they read in the newspapers, or hear on the news, that yet another fishing boat has sunk with fatalities. I hope that my right hon. Friend will indicate the measures that be is taking to improve the safety of the industry. Of course, it is a risky industry. Of course, there will be accidents. However, the British people will wish to know that the Government are not leaving safety totally at risk but are considering seriously ways of improving the safety record of the industry.
I know that other hon. Members will wish to speak on more technical matters. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. When my right hon. Friend responds to the debate I hope that he will appreciate that there is general and widespread concern, especially in Scotland, about the future of this important industry. I hope that tonight he will be able to give the reassurances that I seek.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I intervene early and briefly in the debate on British fisheries policy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) on managing to get the first debate in a series of debates that will continue throughout the night.
I do not cavil, quibble or complain that the Secretary of State for Scotland is to reply. I appreciate that it was a Scottish cabal that managed to obtain the debate. It would have been pleasing to see the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Government Front Bench, but I do not complain about the right hon. Gentleman's presence. I know from past experience that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be much involved with fisheries policy, especially when it goes before the Fisheries Council, which will probably be before the end of the recess.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that on 24 May his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met the British Fishing Federation, the Scottish Fishing Federation, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Fisheries Organisation Society—indeed, all sections of the industry. They met to discuss conservation and fishing net mesh sizes. The right hon. Gentleman decided to proceed, with the general agreement of the industry, with those conservation measures. He did so this month. We think that is right.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) deferred this conservation measure for a few months to create a better atmosphere for the negotations on a common fisheries policy. No doubt that act of the right hon. Gentleman has incurred some displeasure within the EEC. However, I can tell him and his right hon. Friend that they have our backing on conservation, and always will.
The same firmness will be necessary for this major effort at the next Fisheries Council meeting to get a square deal for the United Kingdom fishing industry. It is essential, apart from the general agreement and backing from the industry, for the Government to have solid support from both sides of the House when they

go in for a better deal on a common fisheries policy. That is an important prerequisite. It will strengthen considerably their negotiating posture. I hope that what the Minister says tonight will strengthen the unity of all who are involved in the ports, docks, the fishing industry and processing so that the Government will have the strength of the House behind them.
We all know that, due to the extension of the 200-mile fisheries limit, the United Kingdom must get a better deal in the Common Market fishpond. The 200-mile limit greatly reduced the opportunities for our fisheremen. Indeed, the expulsion from third country waters has been a major factor in the reduction of employment in the fishing and fish processing industries. In Hull, for example, it is estimated that this past year there were about 1,070 people employed full-time in fishing compared with over 2,080 ten years ago, a cut of almost 50 per cent. That has been the deleterious effect on one port alone.
In 1976, about 65,000 people in Britain were employed in fishing and ancillary industries. About 17,000 were full-time fishermen. Therefore this is a great industry. However, it has suffered considerably as a result of the exclusions.
Britain's deep-sea fishing industry has also suffered severely from the loss of distant-water fishing, to the tune of about £80 million a year in value, affecting Humberside, Fleetwood and Aberdeen. The annual catch of demersal fish—cod, haddock and plaice—dropped from over 760,000 tons at the time of the Treaty of Accession to a level in 1976 of about 600,000 tons. Of this, the tonnage taken from third country waters dropped from about 360,000 tons in 1972 to 55,500 tons in 1978. That is an awful slump.
Since our accession, the demersal catches by other countries in the waters under our sovereignty and jurisdiction up to the 200-mile limit have increased from 360,000 tons to about 470,00 tons, although we must recognise that nearly half of that was by non-Common Market countries.
We have recently seen—it has been admitted—that the poaching still goes on in our waters and that the Germans have taken 10,000 tons more than their quota this past year. We do not know


to what extent the Dutch and the Danes have done the same.
The pelagic catches—herring, sprats and mackerel—of other countries around our shores have increased out of all recognition since the Treaty of Accession. In 1975—my latest figures—they amounted to 1,037,000 tons in the United Kingdom 200-mile zone. Those figures show just how important are the fish in our waters—and how important they are to us. Indeed, over 60 per cent. of fish caught in waters of the Common Market member States is taken in British waters.
That short, frightening, factual trend is the reason why we have been, and still are, demanding a new common fisheries policy. The Opposition are prepared to back the Government on what might be termed the five point plan to regenerate the British fishing industry. I hope that we have agreement on this and that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend will be prepared to fight and stand up in the Council on these points.
First, we should establish proper conservation measures. Secondly, we must build up and maintain adequate enforcement of conservation. Thirdly, we must obtain a fair share for the United Kingdom fishermen of the fish stocks in the Common Market pool. Fourthly, we must fight for preferential access in our coastal waters, going for an exclusive 12-mile belt. Fifthly, we must stress that the United Kingdom should have a dominant preference in the 12-mile to 50-mile zone.
This is a package which we all feel is necessary to safeguard the industry and all those whose livelihoods depend upon a thriving fishing industry. These, therefore, must be our objectives, and there must be strong determination on the Government's part to achieve them. I hope that the Government can make progress at the next Fisheries Council meeting. I know that the matter is slipping, and may slip further while the House is in recess.
I hope also that the Secretary of State for Scotland will let his right hon. Friend know that we should like the approval of the House to be given before the final deed is done.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who has

spoken from the Opposition Front Bench, because he made clear that he intended to pursue the bipartisan policy that has been always a tradition in the House on fishing matters. Just as when we were in Opposition we fully supported the robust attitude then taken by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), so we are now glad to have an indication that the present Opposition intend to follow that tradition.
One other point that the right hon. Gentleman made which I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will agree with is that the House should be given the chance to approve or disapprove any deal which my right hon. Friends may bring back from the European Community. We pressed that on the previous Government and they agreed, and I think it essential that the present Government also should agree.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is to reply to the debate, because he will be playing an important part in the negotiations. It is a measure of the importance that we in Scotland attach to these matters that all Scottish Conservative Back Benchers put in their names as wishing to have the matter debated, and that is reflected in the fact that the Secretary of State is here to respond.
I was glad that this subject was made one for debate on this occasion because it is almost certainly the last chance that the House will have to debate these matters before they are the subject of negotiation again, and possibly final negotiation, in Brussels. It is the last chance that we shall have to put before my right hon. Friend what we believe are the minimum conditions for the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy, and for him to tell us whether he accepts those conditions or where he would like some latitude. It is appropriate that on this, almost the final day of this part of the Session, we are having this extremely important debate.
I shall direct my remarks mainly to the question of renegotiation of the common fisheries policy, but at the outset I think it only right that as a background I should put on the record what a sad and unhappy state the fishing industry is in at the moment, which makes it all the more vital that we get a success-


ful renegotiation of the common fisheries policy.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley quite properly gave us one or two of the facts of the sad decline of the fishing industry in recent years. I would add two general facts which, I think, make clear beyond doubt the sad state into which it has fallen.
The first fact, which there is no gainsaying, is that in the last five years or so some 45,000 jobs have been lost in the industry at sea and on land, directly or indirectly. That is a terrible decline in the employment in any industry.
Secondly, in the last five years the number of deep-sea vessels in the British fleet has been more than halved, having gone down from 429 to 202. This decline is continuing very sharply, because I understand that since January this year another 17 vessels have been withdrawn from their previous work.
The right hon. Gentleman gave some statistics relating to Hull and, of course, I accept them. I should like to reinforce his argument by giving some statistics relating to Aberdeen. Last year, in Aberdeen the catch from Faroes—one of the traditional grounds for our trawlers—was only 14 per cent. of what it was five years ago. That is a shocking decline in what was once a very considerable source of revenue and prosperity for Aberdeen vessels.
When I became a Member of Parliament nine years ago, there were about 10,000 people in Aberdeen engaged, directly or indirectly, in the fishing industry. Today that figure has fallen to 7,000. The deep-sea trawling fleet companies, which numbered 16 or 17 when I became a Member, now number only seven. The membership of the Aberdeen Fishing Vessel Owners' Association was 140 in 1970. Today it is 70—exactly half. There is no question, therefore, but that the industry is in a period of very serious decline.
The Common Market is only one aspect of it. In Aberdeen, we have the advantage of North Sea oil. As I argued in a debate earlier in the week, it has been a great blessing to Aberdeen as a whole, but there is no question but that it has had a very damaging effect on many of the traditional industries in the

area. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) and my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) will confirm that it has had a similar effect in their areas.
Wages used to be well below the national average in Aberdeen. I am not arguing that this was a good thing for the wage earner, but it made our industries more competitive. Whereas in the traditional industries in Aberdeen the wages used to be 10 per cent. below the national average, they are now 15 to 20 per cent. above the national average. It is extremely difficult for the fishing industry to attract men from the oil industry, because the oil industry is paying wages well above that level. North Sea oil, blessing though it has been for Aberdeen and for the country as a whole, has been very damaging in many cases to the traditional industries.
There are many other problems that the fishing industry has had to face, and perhaps my hon. Friends will want to dwell on these. There is the fact that we no longer have Iceland. We no longer have the Faroes to any great extent. We no longer have Norway to any great extent. Three or four years ago, about 30 per cent. of the total Scottish catch came from Iceland, the Faroes and North Norway. The figure has sunk almost overnight to less than 10 per cent. today.
There is the turmoil over the common fisheries policy, there are the problems on the West Coast with the mackerel, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) is dealing at this moment. There is also the fact that the price of fuel, which accounts for about 25 per cent. of the costs of the industry, is rocketing upwards.
From every angle, the fishing industry is being battered, whether from Europe, from fuel prices, or from the removal of our traditional fishing grounds. We are now looking to my right hon. Friend and his colleague in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to get a deal out of the EEC that will do something to reverse the decline into which the industry has fallen.
I do not think that I need emphasise to my right hon. Friend the need to be robust in these negotiations. I paid frequent and genuine tribute to the robustness of the right hon. Member for Deptford in his approach to this matter. I


know that he had reasons for that approach with which we would not all agree, but, whatever the reason, the method was right. Whoever negotiates must prove that in order to be a good European it is not necessary to be a weak Briton. We must show that we can be good Scots and Britons as well as good Europeans, by fighting for the interests of Scotland and Britain in these negotiations.
I was extremely pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in almost the first speech that she made—if I remember rightly it was in Scotland—that the European Community must realise that, although the present Government were more pro-European in their attitude than the previous Labour Government, they would not be a soft touch. I think that my right hon. Friend should make it clear, right at the beginning of these negotiations, that we shall not be a soft touch for the Europeans on the common fisheries policy.
Before I turn, briefly, to the question of the minimum conditions which I hope that my right hon. Friend will get out of these renegotiations, I want to make one background point. Fish are not a Community resource. The fish do not belong to the European Community as a whole. In British waters the fish belong to this country. The EEC did not extend its limits to 200 miles. Individual member States of the EEC extended their own national limits. We extended our limits to 200 miles under British law. Therefore, the Community cannot claim that the fish in British waters are a Community resource which should be divided up as the Community wishes.
The Treaty of Rome states quite specifically that the Community will not own the natural assets of its member States. In other words, fish remain a British resource within our 200-mile limit, just as German coal, Dutch gas and French vineyards are the natural resources of those countries. Indeed, in a curious way, North Sea oil is a natural marine resource which it is within the power of the British Government, and not the European Community, to dispose of. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it quite clear, as a background to any negotiations, that the fish in British waters are a British

resource and not a European Community resource.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley gave us what he called a five-point plan. I would not disagree with what he said in any major way. I have written down five minimum conditions which are slightly different. The five minimum conditions that we must secure from the European Community if we are to secure justice for the fishing industry—indeed, not only the fishing industry but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) said, for the British consumer—are as follows.
The first condition is that we must have an exclusive zone for British fishermen. I suggest that that exclusive zone should be 12 miles as an absolute minimum. The whole argument about an exclusive zone for British fishermen is given more force when we consider that within the fairly near future Spain and Portugal are likely to become members of the European Community. If British fishermen were terrified at the thought of French, Danish and German fishermen fishing up to the edge of British beaches, they are more terrified at the thought of adding to that Spanish and Portuguese fishermen with their large and efficient fleets. So an exclusive zone is the first minimum condition.
The second minimum condition is that British fishermen must have a zone of preferential access if we are to be able properly to protect our own industry. I think that the preferential access zone should be a minimum of 50 miles.
The third minimum condition is that we must have not only proper quotas but proper quotas of proper fish. We do not want the quota percentage to be made up of horse mackerel, or other rubbish, which is the sort of thing that the EEC tried to spring on us before. It is totally unacceptable in any sense of natural justice that, if the British contribute about 65 per cent. of the fish within the waters of the EEC countries, they get out only 20, 25 or even 30 per cent. It is a grotesque imbalance to put in 65 per cent. and take out only 25 or 30 per cent. Members of the Community must be made to realise that we must take out a percentage that is commensurate with the percentage that we put in.
The fourth minimum condition is that when the quotas are finally agreed—we all hope that my right hon. Friend will succeed in the autumn—they must be properly enforced. The sad fact is that one cannot trust fishermen, particularly fishermen of foreign countries, to obey the quotas. I see the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) smiling. I do not know whether he is smiling at the fact that I referred in as delicate and polite a way as I could to overfishing by foreign fishermen. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when the right hon. Member for Barnsley spoke about this, but the Germans have admitted over-fishing cod by no less than 40 per cent. They have admitted that that is the increase.

Mr. David Penhaligon: What about the Scottish practice of catching mackerel off the coast of my county? When the fishermen discover that they are not big enough, they throw them back into the sea and try to find some bigger ones.

Mr. Sproat: That seems a sensible precaution for the Scottish fishermen to take. None the less, there is an essential difference between disputes among British fishermen and disputes between British fishermen and foreign fishermen. The hon. Gentleman should realise that, although our fishermen are certainly no angels, there can be no doubt that the attitudes of our fishermen on conservation are infinitely and provably superior to those of the French, who have fished out their own grounds. It is precisely because we fear that those bad habits of overfishing will be extended to our own grounds that we are so insistent upon getting proper quotas.

Mr. James A Dunn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one should practise what one preaches, especially if one is asking others to conform to the regulations and ideology that one is preaching? Is it not more difficult for those negotiating on our behalf to come to terms with their European partners, and does it not smack of hypocrisy, when the malpractice by Scottish fishermen goes on? By throwing fish back into the sea, they are destroying the resource. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not agree with that.

Mr. Sproat: I was half joking. Of course, one of the reasons why we approved of the change in mesh size was to ensure that not many young fish were caught. I was merely pointing out that there is a traditional row between the Cornish fishermen and the Scottish fishermen. I made the remark that I did in order not to get involved in another endless argument about the rights of this case, because it is irrelevant to the point that I was making.
I beseech my right hon. Friend to make certain that these quotas are enforced by a comprehensive control regime, with proper effort and licensing controls. That is the only way in which one can protect and conserve the species of fish.
My fifth minimum condition is that the coastal State should have the right to take unilateral further conservation measures, as long as they do not discriminate against any members of the Community. The measure that we all believe to be the most necessary is what is known as the one-net measure, so that the same vessel does not scoop up the young fish with one net and then pretend that it is using another net for other fish.
Those are the five minimum conditions—the exclusive zone, the preferential access zone, proper quotas of proper fish, the quotas adequately enforced and the right of the coastal State to take further measures of conservation where necessary.
I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is granted that the industry is in a most unhappy state, but, unfortunately, we cannot decide on the future size and structure of the British fleet until we have the common fisheries policy out of the way. Therefore, our first task is to get it right. The next task of the new Government must be urgently to bring about a proper size and structure for the British fleet in the coming years, so that it does not have to go through the periods of total lack of confidence and decline that we have so sadly witnessed in past years.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I have been delighted to hear the general tone of the debate. There is no great disagreement in the House about what measures are required or about the background to the dispute. I suspect that compared with Scottish hon. Members I may


present a slightly different argument with regard to the local fishermen, but there is no basic disagreement about how we have got where we are.
For various reasons, the British fishing fleet has been thrown out of Iceland and Norway, and it has wrecked its own herring stocks in Scotland. The great fishing capacity of the United Kingdom fleet that lived off those resources has nothing to do. The simple truth, and my complaint, is that a large percentage of it—at least, at one time in the year—seems to arrive in Cornwall.
Before the fleet came, six years ago, there had been a steady build-up of the Cornish fishing industry, based on mackerel. Hard-won markets for human consumption had been found in the European Community. Communities that had not thrived for a long time began to thrive. The method of fishing was conservation at its best. The Cornish method was what is called long-line fishing, which consists of nothing more than a small boat pulling a long line behind it. The line has on it at about one-metre intervals a hook so designed that it oscillates in the water, causing a sort of shimmer.
Being just about the most stupid fish the Lord has ever created, mackerel have yet to learn that the hook is poison, and they jump on it. No bait is required. The mackerel jump on the hooks in large quantities—at least, they did until fairly recently. The ports of Newlyn, Flushing, Mevagissey and Looe saw fishing such as they had never seen for decades, all based on the long-line technique.
The point that I want to make about conservation is that we must attack technique. Having seen the experiments of the previous Government, carried out with some dedication in the West Country, I think that limiting fish on a tonne a day basis is no good. Fishermen seem to have difficulty in counting beyond a certain number. Some have difficulty in weighing the fish that they have caught, except when they come to sell it, when inspiration suddenly returns to them. I do not believe the returns made by the fishing industry. Nor does anyone else who is very close to it. Therefore, it is technique that we must limit, as well as the number of boats.
In my county the fish were being caught and no great harm was being done. Everyone seemed very happy. Just last week one of the fishermen of Padstow was sent to gaol for 12 months for evading income tax of £12,000 over a period of three years, which gives an indication of how happy people are fishing off Cornwall.
The trouble is that in the United Kingdom very few people eat unsmoked mackerel. It is a ludicrous habit not to eat fresh mackerel. I have eaten it ever since I was old enough to eat anything. In Cornwall we say that the English will not eat mackerel, and there is a great deal of truth in that. I congratulate the Scottish industry on doing great work in smoking mackerel and finding new markets for it. It deserves due credit for that work, and it has nothing to do with the people in my area. However, the sheer quantity that is caught cannot be dealt with by all the dedicated Scottish smokers and Cornish eaters of mackerel in a lifetime, let alone each year. The quantities are quite incredible, and the problem is what to do with all these fish.
A more amazing decision has been made, implemented and allowed to continue than any I have seen since I have been in Parliament. The Carrick Roads in Falmouth during the mackerel fishing season is full to bursting with Soviet factory boats. I have counted 17 vessels, so rumours of more than that I do not believe. There is a great number and people say that there is a greater number than 17.
The Scottish purse seiners descend on us. They catch the mackerel by the thousand tons, take it to Falmouth and sell it to Soviet bloc factory boats. I have been on a Bulgarian boat. The fish come on board, they are split, the innards thrown to one side, the mackerel filleted and the fillets frozen. The remainder is ground, boiled and dried. I invite the Minister to witness the process on a Soviet bloc factory fishing boat designed for the mid-Atlantic, half a mile outside St. Mawes, grinding, pressing and boiling fish. It has an aroma that he will not forget in a hurry, and it is one that my constituents never cease to remind me of. It is an incredible sight and the situation is incredible.
There are two reasons why it should not be allowed. It is a silly use of our


mackerel stocks and it should not be allowed purely on the basis of planning. There is a never-ending process for permission to build a factory en shore, which often seems complicated to the point of despair. However, if the factory floats and a boat is anchored in a large harbour such as Falmouth, no regulations apply. How many years will the Government allow that to carry on in the Falmouth harbour? How do they justify that planning peculiarity that if the factory were on land all the planning regulations would apply but because it is at sea they do not? Perhaps the Government will give an indication of their enthusiasm for that aspect of fishing in my part of the country. I think it is obscene nonsense, as do the local people and others who have studied the matter.
The local people suspect that the reason why it is allowed is that there is no doubt that the United Kingdom fishing fleet is in trouble, and mackerel represents a large percentage of the fish available. It is convenient—let us leave it at that—to let Cornish mackerel stocks be plundered because it allows the Government to avoid facing the horrible harsh reality that even greater reductions in the United Kingdom fishing capacity must occur before equilibrium is reached.
I do not blame the Government for the historic situation. They cannot take the blame for something that has been happening for years when they have been in office for only 11 or 12 weeks. I warn them, however, that if they allow this to continue there will be no mackerel left in West Cornwall. The last natural fish in United Kingdom waters will be destroyed and the Cornish-based fishing industry will disappear along with it, if that has not already happened.
There are a number of obvious reforms that are required for the local industry. We need a six-mile exclusive zone, and there is nothing preposterous in that request. The boats are small and cannot go much further than that. Why should the community not enjoy its own resources? There are times when one can stand on the cliffs of Cornwall and see ocean-going boats fishing, they say, outside the three-mile limit that is already imposed locally. I find it difficult to judge distances over the sea but I could probably run that three miles in a time which would break

the world record. However, no doubt the distance is three miles for all that. But one sees these ocean-going boats fishing just three miles off the coast. We want a six-mile exclusive zone.
The Scottish fishermen—and the Northern fishermen are not much better—say that if they were excluded up to six miles, which is the crucial point, the viability of catching mackerel would no longer be there. They should be forced to catch the enormous quantities of mackerel which all agree exist 60 or 80 miles off the Isles of Scilly, probably the very last fishing ground to be exploited.
These large boats can go to that ground. My fishermen cannot. There is no way that a 30 ft. long liner can go 60 or 80 miles to lie off the Scilly Isles, catch fish and come back again. The oceangoing boats were designed to go such distances.
I have yet to hear a logical reason why the Government do not apply the pressure of giving a six-mile exclusive zone to local fishermen and making the big boats catch mackerel off the Isles of Scilly. They are the ones which can catch the mackerel there; the local industry cannot. There would be little logic in the local industry modifying itself to do so. It can catch the fish that are local; let the ocean-going boats catch the fish in the ocean.
I would like to see a close season against netting. The practice of catching immature fish must be one of the most ludicrous wastes of natural resources which even the fishing industry has succeeded in dreaming up. We need a great reduction in the total catch. That will only be done by a very strict limit on the number of licences granted to the large boats and then consideration given to restrictions of technique. At least within 25 or 50 miles off the coast there is a very good case for the banning of purse seining altogether—not just limiting the catch per man per day but limiting the technique altogether.
Fish is the ultimate of finite resources. The stocks are being reduced. If we catch what is left, there will not be enough left to breed so as to feed and employ future generations of human beings. Limiting and banning certain techniques might just bring back an equilibrium between supply and demand in this great


industry. I do not believe that trusting to the returns of tons caught or any other aspect is likely to achieve the aim which the whole House claims to have.
My last point is perhaps not within the responsibility of the Minister who is to reply. I hope that he does not regard himself as being just the Scottish Minister with responsibility for fishing. There is not a county in England which has higher unemployment or lower wages than Cornwall. That is a fact of numbers. The percentage unemployed in Cornwall over the year on average is worse even than the figure for Liverpool.
There are those who believe that Cornwall will solve its problems only by developing what is natural to it, and I am one of those. One of the industries that is natural to Cornwall is fishing. We have an enormous coastline. We are not demanding the exclusive rights to the fish there—that would be silly. We all live in the same great nation.
What we do claim is the right to a fair percentage share. We claim the exclusive right to the first five miles around our coast. We claim the right to an increasing employment factor based on this natural resource of our part of the country. There we have it. We have the fishing industry off Cornwall. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the Soviet factory boats in the Carrick Roads. We want an increasing percentage of the total market available for fishermen in Cornwall. I want to see a substantial reduction in the total fishing done, and I must warn the Minister that if that is not carried out there will be no fish available for anyone in the Western Approaches before long.
Most of all, I want to see a policy developed whereby equilibrium is reached, leaving the British fishermen in general to praise themselves as being more conservation minded than most of our European partners. That is probably true, but they will have to improve a great deal on their historic record if we want to get back into equilibrium. Let us not just blame the European Community for the herring shortage off Scotland. We might choose to blame them in the rhetoric of a general election campaign. But we do not have that fear again for a while, so let us get down to the reality of the

position. In some ways British fishermen are not a great deal better than any others.
I ask the Minister to consider seriously the alternative which I suggested of conserving fish by the restriction of techniques. All he has to do is ban techniques and say "No, you may not fish with your purse seine. We are banning them. They are against the common interest." It would he perfectly possible to catch all the mackerel that my part of the country could manage with just six purse seiners and a total crew of 40, and that would be the Western Approaches fishing industry. I want to see a locally based fishing industry where the inshore man has a great deal more strength than before. This can be done by giving exclusive zones to the communities where they are and by a considerable banning of techniques.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate on the fishing industry so early in what promises to be a very long night discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill.
I shall resist the temptation to cross swords with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). Instead, I shall concentrate on those matters about which he and most other right hon. and hon. Members are in agreement, especially bearing in mind that we are likely to see a meeting between the fisheries Ministers of the European Economic Community during the parliamentary recess. That is why it is particularly valuable that we are debating this matter tonight.
The principal concerns of the fishing industry today stem very much from matters concerned with the EEC. These are of primary concern.
One reason why it is important that we tackle these problems rapidly is that there are other matters outstanding with which it would not be clever to get to grips until a major question such as the future of the common fisheries policy had been resolved.
Perhaps I might summarise some of the key factors which I hope that Ministers will bear in mind. The three key phrases that we want to see the Government bear in mind all start with the letter "c". The first is conservation. Without it, there is no long-term future


for the British fishing industry or for the European fishing industry. The second is confidence, which the industry sadly lacks both in the future and in the ability of the country and the Community to police the agreements which have been and are being made. The third is the Conservative manifesto of the last election. This pointed out the key matters which we want to see the Government deal with in the next few weeks and months.
My right hon. Friend does not need lectures from me about the particular and detailed problems of the industry and the detailed points that will arise during the negotiations. I should, however, like to hear him reaffirm that the Government's intention is to follow what was so admirably expressed in the Conservative election manifesto. One of the matters that influenced Members on the Conservative Benches was the quality and effectiveness of representations made by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The sincerity and the knowledge with which the federation presented its case appealed very much to hon. Members on this side of the House.
What makes the federation different from almost any major lobby visiting Ministers is that it does not want taxpayers' money. It wants a fair agreement to create an environment in which the fishermen can effectively follow their calling. I hope that close contact will be maintained between Ministers and fishermen throughout the recess and during the negotiations that we hope will take place soon in Brussels. There is an urgent need for rapid progress to be made in these negotiations in the European Economic Community. If agreement is not brought about soon, the problems will get worse rather than better.
There are also many internal United Kingdom problems that are awaiting resolution. But it is better that they should not be debated, or attempt made to deal with them, until we have sorted out the key European questions on which the United Kingdom fishing industry is remarkably united. We should be getting past the stage of arguing within the European Community. We should be working together in our dealings and negotiations with those outside the Community. There is plenty of work to

be done. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland knows, there is concern in my constituency about the apparent dumping of Norwegian cooked crab meat. I am sure that he will soon inform me of the resolution that is proposed for that problem.
I conclude with the hope that Ministers will have the same kind of success in negotiating in Brussels for the interests of the British, and the Scottish fishing industry, as they have achieved in negotiating on behalf of the farming industry. I hope that they will achieve the same success as my right hon. Friend in recent days in defending the specific interests of Scotland in that context.

Mr. David Myles: The fishing industry requires not funds so much as attention to two interrelated factors—conservation of stocks, and international agreement. The British Government have felt constrained to introduce unilateral conservation measures within British fishery limits, despite the threat of being arraigned before the European Court. I believe that that action was necessary and imperative.
Besides the various bans on direct fishing for herring, those limits have included the reduction of permitted by-catches. I have every sympathy with the prawn fishermen who say that the 50 per cent. by-catch regulation is an impossible imposition and I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to look at that anomaly.
But this Bill is about the allocation of funds. I urge Ministers to consider the small boat yards, where White Fish Authority grants are exhausted and fishermen are going to foreign yards in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Holland to get low fixed-interest loans and extended credit facilities. I recognise the need for a moratorium on an extension of our fishing fleet, but the door should be left a wee bit ajar so that worthy young men can get a start and our yards can maintain their repair capability.
Attention should be paid to the interests of our inshore fishermen and the small operators. I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). The Government will require great wisdom, objective judgment and a fine understanding of the problems.
I know that Ministers have had and will continue to have consultations with the fishing industry. It is only by hearing about the problems from the men on the spot that we can find solutions, but solutions equitable for all will be difficult to find. The very nature of the industry means that everyone is basically in competition.
However, I am sure that Ministers will find, as I have found in my brief association with fishermen in Banffshire, that they understand the problems and the need for positive action. How often have I heard them say "There is enough for need but not enough for greed"? The voluntary catch limit shows that the fishermen are responsible, but we cannot expect them to remain responsible if they see our neighbours being allowed to exploit these scarce resources. We must maintain a balance so that this oldest of industries may grow even older.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fraser: There is wide recognition that this Government, in talks with their EEC partners, have exhibited that they are prepared to take a tough and firm line over the proper development of a realistic common fisheries policy. The balance involved in the pursuit of that realistic policy, coupled with an underlying firmness of commitment to the essential interests of the fishing industry, is heartening.
The greater confidence that is being felt should not be allowed to conceal that there continues to be a real anxiety among fishermen, not just about their medium-term future but about their long-term future. The anxiety arises in two ways. The first has been mentioned by almost all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—diminishing fish stocks and the continuing problem of overfishing.
I make no apology for using the example of the West Germans, who are now admitting publicly that they fish for cod in the North Sea to the extent of 40 per cent. in excess of what is allowed. If that is the admitted excess, the mind boggles at the possible take of the other EEC countries. One wonders at the total extent of overfishing in EEC waters. It should be universally condemned.
That problem should and can be solved by proper regulations in the context of a

common fisheries policy with properly enforced conservation measures. Of as much concern to those involved in fishing are structural changes within the industry which cause problems, particularly in the small ports in the United Kingdom.
Boats are becoming larger and equipment more sophisticated. If one considers the new and large purse seiners, it is extraordinary to contemplate that little more than 10 or 20 purse seiners would be needed to cover the ports of Scotland, beginning at Campbeltown, up to the North Coast, and down the East Coast. That worries those who fish from the small ports who have a long tradition and an involved and integrated industry in those towns.
To ban purse seiners may not be the complete answer. When the Government discuss this matter with their EEC partners and representatives of the fishing industry, they should remember what was said in the party manifesto. We said that we would protect the rights of the inshore fishermen. The Government must recognise that in protecting those rights it is necessary to ensure that large purse seiners do not take over the fishing areas round our coasts.
The small boats with small crews are having a difficult time. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) referred to the fuel costs. Inshore fishermen who come in and out of port each day face enormous fuel costs.
Arbroath is an old and established port. It is so essentially part of the town and the East Coast that if one goes back as far as 1624 when people first came out of serfdom and set themselves up as fishermen one finds the names of Swankey, Smith, Spink and Cargill. I know to my cost that when I am assailed by the fishermen of Arbroath I am being assailed by the Smiths, Swankeys, Spinks and Cargills. For four centuries the same families have pursued that interest, and it would be disastrous if this Government, with their great and continuing concern for smaller industries and smaller enterprises, were to allow these people to fail by not giving them the protection they so desperately require.
To destroy the fishing industry in Arbroath would be like lopping Big Ben off the Palace of Westminster. Arbroath


without smokies would be quite as disastrous for the people who live up the East Coast. If I do nothing else before I leave this House, I shall make sure that the Refreshment Department's daily menu carries that most excellent of delicacies, the Arbroath smokie.
In considering the industry's future requirements, the Government must review the vexed issue for fishermen on the East Coast of drift net fishing for salmon at sea. There is a continuing sense of injustice and of ill feeling that the fishermen there are prohibited from this activity while fishermen just across the border are permitted to do it.
The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence may show that this form of fishing for salmon should not be allowed to continue. But, if that is so, we cannot understand why that scientific fact is not equally applicable across the border. If a ban is to be imposed in Scottish waters, however, it would seem only natural justice and common equity that the ban should apply south of the border, too. Alternatively, if drift netting for salmon at sea is acceptable. Scottish fishermen must be entitled to share in that aspect of the industry.
I acknowledge that this is an extremely difficult matter, but I hope that in an examination of regional plans for British fishing waters, or of licensing and secondary licensing systems, proper consideration will be given to it.
When Britain entered the EEC, and at the time of the referendum on membership, great play was made of the opportunities that would arise for small fishing associations to band together into producer organisations and take on responsibilities and powers for marketing and control. That opportunity was held up to those associations as a way in which they could become masters of their own destinies. There is, however, a sense of ill will that, although they were encouraged and pushed into working along those lines, their responsibilities and duties have not yet been clearly defined. The associations want them clearly spelt out so that they may know what they can and cannot do.
The quota system and its implementation may he far from perfect, but the self-regulation that operates under that system, which was regarded as being not

worth while, has often turned out to be better than anything the Government can do. I can give an example to demonstrate what I mean. Quotas can be defeated or ignored by vessels taking immature fish and throwing them overboard. With Government regulation the fish are washed ashore and when they are discovered no one knows who did the dumping. However, when the producer organisations and the skippers are given responsibility and powers of regulation, they know who has been catching and dumping the immature fish. All these matters of technique and size will be known to the skippers and in turn to the producer organisations. A real opportunity exists to take advantage of their expertise by ensuring that the conservation and control of our fishing industry in future is left partially at least in their hands.

Mr. Alex Pollock: Mr. Alex Pollock (Moray and Nairn)
rose—

Mr. A. P. Costain: Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) thinks that I have a Scottish bias, I must explain that I am working through the list of hon. Members who took part in the ballot. It is good news for the hon. Gentleman that there is only one more hon. Member who so took part.

Mr. Alex Pollock: I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because the debate is of especial interest to my constituency, which, I inform the Opposition Front Bench, is both firmly Scottish and British and sees nothing peculiar about that. Indeed, it sees that as the natural order of events, as natural as the sight of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland sitting on the Government Front Bench and waiting to reply to the debate.
The fishing community in Moray and Nairn has played a significant and distinguished part in the fishing industry. It is appropriate to remind the House that when we discuss these matters we talk not only of economic facts and statistics but of the future livelihood and well-being of fishermen, their families and the communities who depend upon them.
It is common today to hear talk of a harsh economic climate, cruel winds, adverse trading conditions and rough seas


through which industry has to pass. Let us not forget that when we talk of fishing matters it is the fishermen who have to face real waters and real winds. The dangers that they face are part of the existence that they accept and about which they make little complaint. They accept those conditions with fortitude. Surely the least that we can do is support them in their endeavours.
One of the most pressing needs—it has been touched on by several hon. Members—is to insist on proper conservation measures. I am sure that my right hon. Friend accepts that need. I hope that I shall be allowed to congratulate him, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on his sterling efforts in Europe in June, when he and his right hon. Friend made it clear at the meeting of the Fisheries Council that if necessary they would take a firm stand on unilateral conservation. I trust that in the coming months they will maintain that insistence in attempting to secure a common fisheries policy.
I ask my right hon. Friend to insist that responsibility for control and enforcement of any common fisheries policy is left to each member State within its own waters. I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). Meanwhile, until such a policy is agreed I urge the Government to accept that it is essential for us to match in financial terms the support and encouragement given to the fishing interests of other member States by their Governments.
Finally, I ask the Government for an assurance at the close of the debate that they will take all necessary steps to ensure, in the immediate future and during the energy crisis, adequate fuel supplies for the fishing industry. Without a regular and guaranteed supply of fuel, the industry's welfare will be thrown into immediate jeopardy. That would be a tragic loss, for not only the industry but the country generally. I suggest that these requests are not too much for us to make on behalf of those from whom we take so much.

10 pm

Mr. A. P. Costain: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that

I have been a Member of the House long enough to know that you never have any bias. I remember when you said that the best wine should be kept to the last. I expected to be called last. You have lived up to your reputation.
My speech will be shorter than usual. My main object tonight is to thank the Minister for so readily deciding to visit the South Coast, to come to my constituency and meet the fishermen in person. That will be greatly appreciated by them. They will be able to put their case to the Minister much better than I can. That will be a unique opportunity. My constituency and that of Dover are nearest to the Continent. The fishermen there have been operating for generations. They have seen all the tricks that the Continental fishermen get up to. If the Minister is able to find time to talk to the fishermen along the coast, he will realise that there is a great deal of difference in different parts of the coast.
Fishermen in my constituency never seem to understand why Ministers who visit them do not appreciate that there are deep sea fishermen, inshore fishermen and longshore fishermen. The people on the South and South-East Coasts consider themselves to be longshore fishermen, similar to those in Cornwall.
A complaint was made that not enough people ate smoked mackerel. It was on our menu tonight. I did not see the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) eating it himself.

Mr. Penhaligon: The problem is that no one will eat mackerel if it is not smoked. The best way to eat mackerel is straight out of the sea, as the Lord made it—not smoked.

Mr. Costain: was not criticising the hon. Gentleman. I remember when I asked Mrs. Braddock when she was Chairman of the Kitchen Committee whether she could have sprats put on the menu. I received more publicity over that remark than anything else that I ever said in the House.
We are looking forward very much to seeing the Minister. He will understand the point much better if it is made directly by the fishermen. His promise to come is very welcome. It has saved him a long boring speech from myself.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I am very glad that hon. Members were fortunate and adept enough to arrange this as the first debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. I am glad to take part in the debate, at least for a short time, especially as more than 50 per cent. of the total British fishing industry is now located in Scotland. If we manage our affairs aright, I believe that that proportion should go up within the next few years.
The general attitude that the Opposition will take to the Government on the negotiations on the common fisheries policy is this. We shall support the Government if they defend British—and Scottish—interests robustly in these negotiations in the Council of Ministers. But, of course, we shall be highly critical of the Government if in any way they lessen the efforts made by the previous Government to reach a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations.
In the last few months before the election, it was the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and myself in the negotiations that a number of Ministers felt that they did not have to come to serious negotiations for a settlement as there would be a general election soon and that there might then be a changed Government who would be more accommodating to their point of view.
My right hon. Friend and I were at pains to point out that the views which we were expressing on behalf of Britain at that time had the unanimous support of the House of Commons. Indeed, in so far as there was a difference of view, there were elements in the House wanting us to take a line which was more extreme—to use the sort of language which the other Ministers tended to use about our attitude—than the one which we were putting in those negotiations.
The Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will take into the negotiations the support of the whole House provided, as I say, that they stick to the line which the House has expressed virtually unanimously on many occasions.
In my view, the whole principle of the common fisheries policy contains an absurdity and something which is completely unsuitable to British interests, but the view which we took during the negotiations was that, whatever the ultimate settlement was, it had to recognise the substantial contribution which this country makes to the total fishery resources of the Community. About 60 per cent. of the Community's total resources come. from British waters, and this must be recognised in any settlement of the common fisheries policy. We expressed our demands in terms which have been mentioned already, but perhaps I may just go over them quickly now. They were, of course, supported by the Opposition at that time.
We wanted an exclusive national zone up to 12 miles, with phasing out of historic rights. We wanted a dominant preference for this country in the zone between 12 and 50 miles. We wished to see a strong conservation policy, and in the absence of Community measures, we wished to reserve to the individual nation States the right to take, on a nondiscriminatory basis, national conservation measures. We wanted sensible quotas, and especially quotas satisfactory to this country in the high-quality fish which we have traditionally fished.
We wanted also to ensure that any quotas and all the other elements of a common fisheries policy should be subject to proper monitoring and control so that abuses of quota or of other elements of the policy could be detected and right, with a view to our having a policy which was properly policed and which we could be confident was being adhered to by other countries as well as ourselves.
I have gone over those points briefly, but I think it important to put them on the record again, and I shall in a moment ask whether the Government accept them as proposals which they in their turn wish to press for in the coming negotiations.
We spelt out our proposals in some detail at one of the meetings of the Council of Ministers last November when we were asked to put certain aspects of them on paper. We did that. We laid a paper at the meeting of 23–24 November last year, and we put those proposals, particularly for the 12-mile zone and the


12 to 50-mile zone, in the context of a fishing plan, because the Commission itself had put before the meeting proposals for the use of fishing plans to regulate a common fisheries policy.
There is, therefore, no question but that the views of the Labour Government were well known to the rest of the Council of Ministers, and we did a considerable amount of detailed work in spelling out exactly where we expected preference and what kind of preference we expected for the fishermen of this country.
I am sorry to say that at the meeting in November, as at previous meetings, the response of the other Ministers was completely unsatisfactory. On that I make the general point that the view taken by the Labour Government was that we were not willing to reach an unsatisfactory settlement simply for the sake of having a settlement and ending uncertainty in the industry. There is uncertainty in the industry, which is extremely worrying for those involved. Of course, they would like a settlement, and they would like one as quickly as possible. The industry and the Government had a common view on that.
We also had a common view that, even with the urgency of reaching a settlement and the urgency of ending the uncertainty, we should not be coerced or pushed into an unsatisfactory solution simply for the sake of being able to set aside this very difficult, almost intractable, problem with which we have been struggling for several years. I hope very much that in the negotiations the Government will maintain that view.
If the Government were to give any impression to the rest of the Ministers concerned that their main effort was to get an early settlement—not regardless of the terms, but the best settlement they could get as quickly as they could get it—it would be disastrous for their negotiating position. I hope that they will adhere to the strong position that this country has maintained for as long as that is necessary in order to get a satisfactory settlement.
It would help the House if the Secretary of State would tell us where the Government have got to on the general state of the negotiations. We should be glad to have his assurance that the stand taken by the previous Government is a con-

tinning stand which has been adopted by the Government. It would also help the House if he would tell us where we stand on the various conservation measures, some of them taken by the previous Government and some of them adopted and implemented by the present Government. In Scotland in particular, we should like to know where we stand on the question of the Norway pout box, in regard to which we were and are in dispute, I understand, with the Commission. The Scottish industry would like to see a further extension of the box. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is particularly important for fishermen in Shetland.
The other conservation measure with which I am concerned relates to the carrying of only a single net size. This matter was pressed on the previous Government by the then Opposition. There are difficulties about it but I know that the Government are sympathetic, and it would help the House if the Secretary of State would let us know the Government's view on it.
It would also help us in Scotland if the right hon. Gentleman would say something about the fish processing industry, which has suffered very badly, particularly in Scotland, because of the ban on herring in the North Sea. We had discussions with the industry. It did not produce what we thought was an acceptable scheme for general help to the industry, but we said that we were willing to consider assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act 1975, and we had a number of applications before the election. Do the Government intend to continue that section 7 help?
Most of the industry is in areas which will lose their development area status. When that happens, section 7 help will not be available to them. It will be necessary, when development or intermediate area status is lost, for some other help to be given to these processors. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say something about that.
I should also like the right hon. Gentleman to say something about the restructuring of the industry, but I want first to make a general point about it. We took the view, in conjunction with the industry—it was a view which was shared by the industry—that during the


period when we were negotiating hard to get a satisfactory common fisheries policy, and during the period in particular when it looked as if we might get a satisfactory settlement, it was undesirable for us to talk too much about restructuring of the industry, because in a sense it could have been interpreted as an admission that we felt that we would lose a large part of the industry in this country. That would not have been sensible during a period of negotiation, when our attitude was that we were not intending to lose a large part of the industry in this country.
In the few months before the general election, the industry accepted that whatever the outcome of the negotiations—I hope it will be a satisfactory outcome—the industry would not be the same again. There is no way of bringing back exactly the same balance as we had in the past. Therefore, the industry mutually agreed with the previous Government that it was no longer sensible not to talk about restructuring.
A working party, under the auspices of the White Fish Authority, produced certain proposals. Some of those proposals, together with others, were informally discussed with the fishing industry prior to the general election. I believe that it is important that those discussions continue in such a way as not to weaken our negotiating position within the Community. The right hon. Gentleman will have our support on that. I hope that the discussions are continuing, as we shall be faced with some very difficult problems.
I was rather amused—though I sympathised with what they said—at what some Members on the Government side said tonight about the problems posed by new technology. Those same hon. Members are advocates of the free market, in general terms, and would be extremely critical of workers in any other industry who resisted the advance of new technology. However, they understand that new technology poses very considerable problems for the fishing industry in certain areas.

Mr. Peter Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there might be an argument round the coasts that this new technology should not be introduced

and that that is in some way inconsistent with our political view. Surely the new technology will be supplied by Government grants.

Mr. Millan: That is not an accurate statement. The new technology is not been closed for conservation reasons or Some of the new technology could mean the loss of a considerable number of jobs and the destruction of local communities. I do not want to see that happen. I merely point out to hon. Gentlemen that there are other areas which are extremely critical of those who oppose new technology. This is a real problem with which we must grapple.
Unless we get some kind of understanding about the problem quickly, there may be developments which will be irreversible and have certain consequences which none of us would want to see. That will happen unless there is general understanding about how we manage these affairs. Whatever we do, we certainly must try to protect local communities in Scotland and elsewhere. I believe that very strongly.
I know a little about mackerel fishing in Cornwall and I have sympathy with the Cornish fishermen. They have built a thriving local industry and see some of their efforts now being set aside following recent developments.
It is important that we should look after local communities in Scotland. That requires us to deal with a whole complex of problems with which I have not the time to deal now. In any event, it would be an abuse of the privileges of the House.
When we begin to tackle the problems of the long-term structure of the industry, we shall find that there are different interests in different parts of the country and in different sections of the industry. At the end of the day, we shall not be able to satisfy every part of the country or every section of the industry. In some cases their interests are incompatible, and the industry now recognises that. Within the last year it has been willing to discuss some of the problems, in particular the restructuring of the industry. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to let us know what stage these discussions have reached and whether they will continue.
Finally, I repeat what has already been said this evening: that when any settlement is reached on the common fisheries policy we expect the Government to get the approval of the House before finally committing themselves. Unless we get that general approval, the agreement will be a bad one for the industry. I am sure that none of us wants that to happen.

10.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I congratulate my hon. Friends on their good fortune in being successful in getting the first subject in the debate, and also on their energy and devotion in putting down the subject in such good time and giving us the opportunity of debating the fishing industry. It is extremely appropriate and timely that we should do so. As several hon. Members said, we are about to go into recess, during which time it may be that further progress will be made on some aspects of fisheries policy. However, at the present time I do not expect that there will be a Fisheries Council meeting before the House meets again. The present expected date for the next fisheries meeting of the Council of Ministers is towards the end of October.
I was particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), and also to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), for making it quite clear that the Opposition are of the view that provided the negotiations are carried on in the best interests of the industry as a whole, we can expect to maintain what has been the most valuable thing of all during the negotiations over the past few years—the unanimous backing of all sides of the House for the stance which the Government have been taking. This was the case in the last Parliament, and I am most grateful for the indication that it is still the case. As the right hon. Member for Craig-ton will know, it greatly assists us in the negotiations to know that that is behind us.
I should like to say a few general words about the industry, after which I hope that I shall be able to answer all the points which have been raised. As several hon. Members have said, this is a particularly difficult time for our fishing industry and the fishermen in it. Many of their traditional fisheries, such

as the main herring stocks, have either been closed for conservation reasons or have deteriorated to such an extent that it has been necessary to apply restrictions on the level of catch. Coupled with this, there is inevitably a considerable amount of uncertainty as to the future. There is uncertainty as to the extent of fishing opportunities likely to be available in the years ahead and uncertainty about the desirable future size of the industry in the light of those circumstances. The right hon. Member for Craigton referred to that just a moment ago.
It is unhappily the case that the industry has had to live with these uncertainties for at least three or four years. It is also the case that these difficulties may not be removed until we have arrived at a common fisheries policy. In these circumstances, it is quite understandable that the House is convinced that we must urgently pursue a settlement with our Community partners. To the right hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members who raised this matter I can give an assurance that the Government share the view that the top priority is eventually to get an agreed common fisheries policy. We shal then be able to see where our industry fits into it.
However—the right hon. Gentleman specifically made this point—our desire for a settlement that is real and genuine must in no way decrease our determination that the settlement must be an honourable one. We are not prepared to make a settlement for the sake of a settlement if it is not the best that we can get for our fishing communities. The Government are fully determined to seek a settlement that recognises the special importance of the United Kingdom fishing industry, the extent of the contribution which the waters around our coast make to the Community's resources in fish and the scale of our lost opportunities in third country waters in recent years. Before we can achieve that, we must first and foremost be assured of a substantial and equitable share of the total fish resources that will be available to Community fisheries.
In our negotiations with the Community, it is also our objective to obtain both an adequate exclusive zone around our coast and a substantial area of preference beyond that. It would be intolerable for anyone to see a future in which


all Community fisherman should be allowed to fish right up to our beaches. For this country, unlike some other countries in the Community, fishing is of major importance. In many parts, whole communities are heavily dependent on it for their livelihood. In these circumstances, it is particularly important that our fishermen should be able to enjoy their traditional fishing opportunities in the waters round our coasts. We are committed to seeking special measures to protect them whenever those are appropriate.
It is clearly in our long-term interest that maximum fishing opportunities should be available to our fishermen. That is why we attach such great importance to the proper management of fish stocks and why a conservation policy is one of the major objectives. It is unfortunate that in the absence of a common fisheries policy, and because of the deteriorating state of some of the stocks, we are obliged to adopt measures which may cause a certain amount of hardship among our own fishermen.
We have, however, been heartened by the industry's commitment to conservation, in the knowledge that overfishing in present circumstances can lead only to poorer fishing opportunities in the years ahead. As several hon. Members have said, we can be very proud of our industry's attitude to conservation. I only wish that other countries fishing in our waters, and, indeed, in their own waters in past years, had had the same regard to the needs of conservation as our industry has shown and is showing.
Of course, a conservation policy cannot succeed unless it is adequately policed. We remain convinced that the best method in the context of a common policy is for each member State to have the responsibility for fisheries protection in its own waters.
Those are the major objectives that we shall pursue in our discussions with our Community partners in preparation for the next major Fisheries Council in October. I have taken careful note of the points made in the debate. I shall make sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and

I bear them fully in mind in the preparations for our discussions in the autumn.
I should like to make one general point. The House is well aware of it, but perhaps the wider audience beyond the House, and more particularly beyond our shores, would do well to learn and reflect upon it. It is the vital fact that everyone studying the British attitude must realise that Parliament, the industry and the country as a whole are absolutely united behind the Government's aim to secure a fair settlement in a common fisheries policy. The Government derive both strength and responsibility from that sort of unity. We intend to use that strength constructively and to accept the responsibility in the negotiations to come, confident that the British fishing industry will have a significant role to play once the common policy is decided.
I have already covered some of the points raised by individual hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Craigton asked me to give an account of the progress of the Council meeting that my right hon. Friend and I attended in June. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) also asked about that. As my hon. Friend recognised, we had a very hard task, in that we were determined that we should stand our ground at that meeting and not be persuaded into making individual agreements on portions of fisheries policy for one or other reason that might be perfectly understandable by itself. We were not prepared to make agreements on individual points in the absence of a settlement of the problem as a whole.
We made it quite clear to our partners that that was our view. We said that we were willing to get down to constructive negotiations in the autumn to see whether a settlement was negotiable but that we were not prepared to agree matters on a piecemeal basis. That is the way that we intend to approach the negotiations. It is the only practical way of ensuring that we have a chance of getting a proper agreement. Our Community colleagues must not make the mistake of thinking that we are prepared to settle for anything less.
The right hon. Member for Craigton and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) asked for


an assurance that the House will be consulted on any deal that is eventually struck. I assure them that the House will be given an early opportunity to debate the terms of any settlement. It is desirable and important that that should be so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) asked a number of questions and made interesting comments about industrial fishing. It is our firm policy as far as possible to encourage the disposal of catches for human consumption, and our policies on mesh sizes are intended to be consistent with that aim. I assure the House that enforcement of those policies is a firm priority. Too much damage is still being done to human consumption species by industrial fishing. One does not usually criticise industrial fishing when the catch is a clean one, but we shall continue to press for proper controls when that is not the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South also asked about safety in fishing—an important matter which is not always covered in our debates. We are aware from recent tragedies around the coast of Scotland how dangerous an industry this is. Consultations with the industry on these matters are taking place all the time and the industry fully appreciates that this is a problem to which it must give much more attention. We shall certainly give our support in investigating every possible way of improving safety and taking all reasonable precautions.
The hon. Member for Truro gave us an interesting and well-informed description of the ways in which mackerel fisheries operate in his area, with particular reference to the factory ships which are such a feature of life in his part of the country at certain times of the year.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is well aware of the environmental concerns arising from the presence of those vessels in the South-West. Much official effort has been devoted to the question of siting and operating the factory vessels to minimise the problems, and it is hoped that the lessons of earlier years will prove of benefit and produce better results in the coming season. It is certainly a matter which we take seri-

ously. We shall do all we can to help, though there is no easy solution.

Mr. Penhaligon: How can the Government justify the presence in British waters of a dozen or so Soviet bloc factory fishing boats?

Mr. Younger: It is not a question of justification. I appreciate that the vessels cause considerable problems and concern among local communities, but we should bear in mind that the vessels provide a valuable market and rewards to those who sell to that market. Fishermen sell to the ships and there is an economic benefit in that.
We have to make sure that we watch the level of stocks. If we think that they are in danger from overfishing, we shall have no hesitation in implementing conservation measures. We have shown our determination to do that on many other occasions, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall not be slow to do it again if the scientific evidence suggests that the operations of the factory vessels are resulting in overfishing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) mentioned, very rightly, the excellence of the case which is presented to us by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. That gives me an opportunity to say how much my right hon. Friend and I appreciate the advice and help that we have had from the federation, even in the short time that we have been in office, and its presence at the negotiations in order to help in any way that it can. This is most valuable in every possible way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) raised the question of the problems created by the 50 per cent. nephrops by-catch limit. This restriction is an essential part of the conservation measures which we introduced on 1 July. These were unilateral measures which, as the House knows, we introduced ourselves in advance of the intention of the Community to do the same in September. Although I appreciate the problems which this limit causes—my hon. Friend has spoken to me several times about this matter—it would be inconsistent to introduce a larger mesh size for white fish without at the same time restricting the amount of fish which may be taken in the


small mesh nets of the nephrops fishermen.
I appreciate that this restriction causes difficulty in certain fishing grounds, but I think that it should be possible in some cases to redirect the fishing effort to areas where nephrops are more concentrated.
I must stress—I am sure that this is what my hon. Friend would want to be quite clear about—that the Government regard this provision as an integral and important part of the 1 July conservation measures, which are most important to us all.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) made a suggestion about the enforcement of quotas by fish producers' organisations. We are well aware of the industry's concern that quotas should be properly managed. The Government share this concern in every way. We are giving careful consideration to the best means of effectively managing quotas, both nationally and on a Community basis. The industry will be given plenty of opportunity to express its views. We have always been prepared to consider the possibility of the producer organisations managing the quotas, but, as the industry knows, there are difficulties in finding workable arrangements for doing so. However, we shall do our best to find them as soon as we can.
The right hon. Member for Craigton also asked me various questions on conservation measures. Firstly, on mesh sizes, as he is aware, these measures, which were originally notified by him and his right hon. Friend the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have now been introduced following the last Council. That is one thing that we are probably agreed about. These are now in force. We have not been made aware of any particular difficulties, although there are some fishermen who have had difficulty in getting the correct sizes of nets because of the difficulties of supply. In general, however, I think that this is working not too badly at present.
The Government's view on the need for the present pout box and the need for consideration of the Shetland position is no different from the view which the

right hon. Gentleman took when he was in office. I certainly would not envisage any change in it.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the one-net rule. Here again, I share his concern about the practice of carrying two nets. We intend to press this matter within the Community in order to try to find a satisfactory solution, because I do not think that the position will be satisfactory until we have some reasonable way of agreement on cutting out the business of carrying more than one net. This is an essential part of the conservation measures, most of which I have been describing.
This has been a most helpful debate. I hope that I have answered most of the points that have been raised. We are most grateful to my hon. Friends for getting this debate at this time of the night and most grateful to the right hon. Member for Craigton and the Opposition for their promise of support in these most important negotiations, in which we shall certainly regard it as our duty to safeguard the interests of our fishermen both north and south of the border. We shall not relax in that task until we have got an agreement which is satisfactory to all of our people in this country.

Orders of the Day — ROADS (DEVON)

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Tony Speller: It is the first time that I have addressed the Chair with you, Mr. Speaker, in it, and may I say as a new hon. Member how much we appreciate you, Sir, for your courtesy, kindness and occasional restraints. I intend this evening not to delay the House too long.
It is noticeable that our friends from Scotland in the House depart as we from Devon arrive. They are none the worse, and nor are we, for that occasion.
There is one mile of dual carriageway in 650 square miles of the North Devon constituency. That is the total for the beautiful and until recently the development area of North Devon. In North Devon we do not seek privilege or advantage. We seek merely parity for an area where we have many jobs in industry but no good roads to travel.
I listened early this morning to the sorrows of the shipbuilding world. We


have a small but booming shipbuilding industry. I also listen when hon. Members say how sad and bad times are. In North Devon times are good, and we intend to keep them that way. We ask not for anything special but only for our fair share to keep things going as well as they are at present.
I find it strange in the House when everyone is talking about saving jobs, people's trouble and everything going wrong. We do not fear depression. We fear that the growing seed of our industry may not be allowed to come to full fruition at this time when soon it will be in a position to stand on its own feet. When that day comes, we would with pleasure give hack our development area or assisted area status and will manage perfectly well without it. I repeat, however, that we have only one mile of dual carriageway, and that cannot be enough.
Many hon. Members spend their holidays in North Devon. I see them. They come to our fetes and pay small sums of money, if not to keep me here, at least to keep my association there. I ask them whether they think that the roads are awful, and they agree. There are stories of travelling 20 miles behind one caravan or so many miles behind one meat lorry. That is not surprising because there are 10-mile stretches of road where one cannot pass. It is almost unbelievable that we have built up successful industry in an area where a bus cannot travel from the county capital of Exeter to the regional capital of Barnstaple without breaking the law and crossing the centre lines.
In the near future when the North Devon link road inquiry, which we are promised for the autumn, comes out, I ask only for the sympathetic consideration of the Government and the sympathetic acceptance by Labour Members of the plea that because we do not seek great advantage we should still be given our just share.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) spoke of his constituency, which is another beautiful part of the world but luckier perhaps than we are. All roads in the West Country slide south. The motorway goes to Exeter and on in dual carriageway to Plymouth, which is an excellent city and is now to be a development area. It has a dual carriage-

way, is on inter-city railway and has an airport and a ferry service, while in North Devon we have none of these things. We do not begrudge Plymouth, Torbay, Totnes or Falmouth their advantageous status.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Is it not a fact of geography that in order to get to Cornwall one has to travel on these roads through Devon to which the hon. Gentleman is referring?

Mr. Speller: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. We do not charge any toll. We wish him well at his 13·9p a mile, and we say "Welcome", but the hon. Gentleman never comes through North Devon. No one seeking speedily to go from A to B ever comes our way. All the roads are in the south, as, indeed, Truro is in the south. Ours is a fine part of the world and a beautiful place that everyone comes to, but nobody comes twice or three times if he is considering fuel economy.
It is the only part of the West Country where a freight surcharge is the normal course of events. If goods are sent to Plymouth there is no freight surcharge, but to Barnstaple there is. We have the excellent and busy Appledore shipyard with few of the problems of other shipyards, apart from the problem of getting its raw materials. There is no railway, and we do not have the roads to carry the heavy industrial materials needed at Appledore.
To get to Appledore shipyard, one goes over what we call the long bridge. It is not long by Welsh or Bristolian standards, but by ours it is. Every arch is of different size and it is a scheduled ancient monument. Every day it takes the buses for the tourists and the long-loaders for the shipyards, and every day it creaks more and more. When will we get the inquiry into the Bideford bypass? The last day for objections was in September 1978, and now it is nearly September 1979. We do not seek special privilege; we simply seek no less than the others in the West Country.
There is an energy crisis, and we have but four industries. We have agriculture, which is superb but not a great employer of labour. We have tourism, which is a great employer of labour for perhaps four months of the year. This year the tourist


trade is being badly hit, first by wicked rumours of people in places like Bristol—"No petrol west of Bristol", they say. Sometimes they were nearly correct and the tourists hesitated. It seems that our holiday trade cannot rely on Bristolians not to stop the tourists as they pass.
We have light industries, of which we are proud. They were subsidised to start with, but having started they are doing well. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), who used to represent Exeter, was instrumental in getting many things going in the area. Her picture adorns two or three walls in factories in North Devon. I have seen them and admired them, and have heard her spoken of in glowing terms, even though she has moved to Crewe.
I accept the good work of all people of all parties. My predecessor in this House worked hard and well. The hon. Member for Crewe worked hard and well when she was in Government, and I seek to work hard and well also. What I am saying is not meant to be controversial. All I am asking is that we should have in our area facilities as good as the rest. Then North Devon will be a happy, prosperous place and the Government can pass the development area status elsewhere.
I know personally four hon. Members I have booked in for holidays in our part of the country. They will come by car. They are very welcome, but when they go home they will say how bad our roads are. Whether it be an extension to the M5 motorway or merely an improvement to existing roads, it is only equitable that we in North Devon should have the same facilities as other places. I do not doubt that we shall soon need fuel-saving regulations on our roads. Soon we must have a speed limit of perhaps 55 m.p.h. It is ridiculous that lorries should pass me doing 85 miles an hour down the motorway, consuming twice the fuel they should do. We accept all the constraints on things like fuel, on weights of lorries, but, because the motor is the only way in which one can get to our part of the country, we must, when the time is right, have the roadway to give us that parity to which I keep referring.
It is not just the question of the roads into North Devon. In their wisdom, the

Government have left Ilfracombe as a development area. It is interesting that the delightful parish of West Down, which which is a rural parish of many sheep but no factories, is a development area, while the next-door parish of Braunton, a place of no sheep but several factories, is no longer a development area. To get to Ilfracombe development area we must go through Barnstaple. I ask the Government to ensure that we get the funds for the Barnstaple relief roads.
We are really talking about a big "T" shape improved road. The bottom of the "T" is the M5. I do not mind if the bottom is in the city of Exeter, adjacent to the borough of Taunton or adjacent to Tiverton. I leave this to the engineers. From the bottom of the "T" we go to the top, which is Barnstaple, a place with which you, Mr. Speaker, are familiar, and go then eastward to Ilfracombe and westward to Bideford. When we have that "T" completed, I can assure the House that here is one "T", for "Tony", who will be delighted and feel that his time in this House has not been wasted.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The history of the North Devon link road has a number of strands in it. One was a report by the South-West economic planning council which placed a very high priority on the necessity to provide a new link road between the motorway system, which was then embryonic, and the development area of North Devon.
The better part of a decade ago, the old—as we must now say—Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Public Expenditure Committee carried out an investigation into development area policy. In the course of that, it took evidence from a considerable number of business men who had brought new industry to development areas. They were asked what was the crucial inducement: was it the existence of selective employment tax, regional employment premia, advance factories, interest-free loans, grants for the education of the work force, or what? In a very significant number of cases the answer was "Good roads", because they represented a real and permanent reduction in costs whereas the others were of a transient nature


which had been known to alter not even just with the complexion of Governments but even with fashions and, of course, with exterior economic criteria. Rootes, for instance, said that it would never have decided to construct its plant at Linwood had it not been for the M6.
As we get further restriction on drivers' hours, this becomes all the more crucial. A line must be drawn beyond which a firm with its own transport needs double the number of drivers and double the number of vehicles if they cannot get to its market or the docks from which its goods are exported and back again in one day.
In terms of fuel economy, many hon. Members will be aware of the remarkable reduction in fuel consumption that comes wth use of the motorway system. By using the motorway from my home in Devon, it may be about 17 miles further to London but I use half a gallon of fuel less each way, which is a saving of a gallon on the return journey. This is due to a combination of several factors. It is partially a matter of gradients. It is also the complete absence of low speed limits so that the vehicle is travelling virtually at a constant speed for the entire journey rather than dissipating energy into heat through its braking system and then having to accelerate its mass again to cruising speed.
The case for the North Devon link road is not only for the benefit of North Devon, although that in itself is adequate justification for it. The existing class A roads serving North Devon are in many cases incapable of radical improvement, for if it is conceptually possible it cannot be done economically. For example, the A361 from Taunton to North Devon passes through Bampton, in my constituency. There, the position is far beyond inconvenient; it is dangerous. Large vehicles have to drive on the pavement because there is no other way of getting through Bampton. Yet such are the topographical features of the ground round Bampton that the engineering works necessary to bypass it would be hideously expensive.
Again, coming up the road from Exeter through Crediton to North Devon the volume of traffic is hideous, especially in summer, in Crediton itself and in

villages such as Newton St. Cyres on the way. But on the most direct route through Sampford Peverell, Halberton and Tiverton the position is chronic and can be adequately relieved only by a complete bypass system which, among other things, the North Devon link road will provide. One hopes that it will not only provide a much better road for the traffic using that route at present but that it will also attract traffic that previously went on the serpentine route through Taunton and Bampton and, to a lesser extent, from Exeter through Crediton to North Devon, just as the A303/ A30 system has had such a large proportion of the traffic that it carried between the South-West and London removed to the more suitable M4-M5 motorway system.
At a meeting with the previous Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the former right hon. Member for Devon, North and myself, the Minister gave a categoric assurance that, subject only to some dramatic recommendation from the public inquiry, stage 2 of the North Devon link road scheme would follow immediately, without a break, on stage 1. This is important, because where stage 1 ends there will be an intolerable focus of traffic unless stage 2 follows immediately from it.
Originally, it was planned to end stage 1 to the west of Tiverton at a place called Rifton Gate on the worst of the three possible routes from Tiverton to North Devon—on the one class B route rather than on the two class A routes. This was a sensible route so long as it did not end there. But to gather up most of the traffic going to North Devon, particularly the heavy goods traffic, and deposit it on a class B road would produce an intolerable situation, not for my constituents, just over the "frontier", but for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). That was why I proposed, on the basis of the previous Minister's assurance of continuity, that it would be more sensible to end stage 1 immediately to the east of the River Exe in Tiverton where the traffic could be distributed temporarily while stage 2 was being constructed over two class A and one class B road systems instead of being concentrated on one class B road.
If, however, there is any possibility of a delay, postponement or even cancellation of stage 2 of the North Devon link road, it would be necessary to revert to the original terminal point. Otherwise, an intolerable situation would be produced in Tiverton.
I should like to mention a matter that is relevant in the context of the totality of funds available for extending the road system. The Ministry of Transport has been fairly enthusiastic about a dual-carriageway system between Ilchester and Exeter along the existing A30. The need for this, to put it mildly, is of very low priority. In many people's judgment, the amount of land that it would take would render it cost-ineffective.
The important fact is that the road connects with the M4 on the wrong side of the junction proposed for the North Devon link road. What would save more than 70 per cent. of the expenditure on the dual carriageway system between Ilchester and Exeter is a new dual carriageway section from Ilminster to Taunton feeding into the M4 at that point on the right side, the shorter side, of the triangle—in other words, to the North Devon link road.
Therefore, it would be entirely consistent with the concept of the North Devon link road that it should be followed when funds were available by a much more suitable and less expensive link system between the M4 and the A30 to Ilminster which would enable goods traffic from North Devon wishing to use the Southampton docks, for instance, to get there much more directly than having to go south to Exeter and then double back on to a dual carriageway system. I have written to the Minister on this subject.
As well as the economic benefit to North Devon, as well as the saving in fuel which would undoubtedly result, there is also the pressing necessity to provide bypassing for Tiverton, Sampford Peverell, Halberton, Bampton, Crediton and Newton St. Cyres in my constituency, either in a physical sense or by providing a route which will take the intolerable traffic load, as this link road would substantially do. In my hon. Friend's constituency, the chronic traffic congestion in South Molton would also be cured by stage 2 of the link road. That is why I

am particularly glad that my hon. Friend had the good fortune to come high in the ballot, so that the Minister can share with us the Government's thinking on this project of such great priority.

11.2 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): To follow from where my hon. Friend has just concluded, I am sure that we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) for this opportunity to look at the traffic needs of his constituency and for presenting his case so engagingly and persuasively.
My hon. Friend is right: we all think of North Devon as an extremely attractive part of the country which residents of most other areas visit for holidays; but it is also a developing and successful industrial area, with the consequent problems and needs. We already appreciate that my hon. Friend will be a powerful advocate for those needs and for some development and assistance. Certainly the Government share his view that at the moment his constituency has inadequate transport links with the outside world. In the case of North Devon, that is road works, so there are a number of schemes under way, to several of which he has referred.
I apologise to my hon. Friend if I do not go into the slightly wider matters about development area status for parts of his constituency and so on, which he will undoubtedly raise in due course with the responsible Ministers.
I begin with the road scheme which was advocated so powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—the North Devon link road. It is the view of the Government and of my Department that North Devon needs an adequate road link to the M5. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton has described the inadequacy of the road links between North Devon and the M5 at the moment, all of which create problems in his constituency as well as in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North.
The present trunk road, for which my Department is at present responsible, is the A361 Barnstaple-Taunton road. It is 52½ miles long, all single carriageway,


and passes through many towns and villages—a number of which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton commended for bypasses. It has several steep gradients, numerous tight bends and some very narrow stretches. It is generally unsuitable for the heavy commercial traffic which has to use it and at summer weekends it is heavily congested with holiday traffic. My hon. Friends are pushing at an open door when they suggest that urgent relief is needed for the A361 and that there should be improvement in the links to Barnstaple.
The Department's solution is the North Devon link road from the M5 at Sampford Peverell, passing north of Tiverton to the outskirts of Barnstaple. It would be only 34¼ miles long and would provide a standard of road which is more in keeping with the needs of the area. It would join the M5 between Taunton and Exeter and would serve motorway traffic in both directions.
The scheme has been pursued for some time. A public inquiry into the need for the new road and into the details of the first stage from the M5 to Tiverton closed early in April. The inspector is expected to report in November.
There must be consideration within the Department by my engineering advisers and others about the implications of the inspector's recommendations before further ministerial decision can be taken. I expect that we shall move to the next stage of decision in the spring of next year at the latest. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the inquiry and ministerial deliberations. It would be legally risky to do so. When a public inquiry has been held, Ministers have a semi-judicial capacity. It is not right to prejudice findings by debating the merits of proposals. We must wait to see what the inspector recommends.. We shall then reach a decision.
Subject to the outcome of the public inquiry, if the strategy is thought to be correct, construction of the first stage could begin in about two years from now. The remaining stages could begin two or three years later.
When talking of the remaining stages, I refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton said about the relationship between stages 1 and 2 of the North

Devon link road. I shall ensure that I am given the full details of the undertakings given to my hon. Friend by the previous Government. The undertakings do not sound surprising or unexpected. One half of the road does not stand apart from the rest. The anticipation is that stage 2 must be subjected to inquiry and will follow closely behind stage 1. There must be no significant gap between decisions on stage 1 and stage 2. The programme would lead to no significant gap if the schemes went ahead as planned.
The North Devon link road is the main proposal for the area. We are waiting for ministerial decisions following the public inquiry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North discussed the proposals for Bideford. The position is inadequate and something must be done about the bridge. My hon. Friend described the bridge as an interesting ancient monument. It has had a chequered career and it is due for a decent retirement, some sensible weight restrictions and some replacement. We are considering that.
Draft orders under the Highways Act for a northern bypass of Bideford, incorporating a high-level bridge, were published in 1978. These are controversial proposals. The controversy involves the bridge and whether there should be a high-level northern bridge or a southern low-level bridge. My hon. Friend is probably more familiar with that argument than I. He has expressed views which are not in favour of the Department's suggestions. We are examining that matter. My hon. Friend's views are shared by residents. Fortunately, some residents support our proposals. We are considering public consultation so that we arrive at the best solution.
Once we have considered all the results of the public consultation, the present intention is to arrange for a public inquiry into whatever preferred solution is then put forward for debate by my Department. That public inquiry will be held, probably in the spring. At that stage all interested parties will have their say and will be able to put forward their points of view. We shall be very much influenced by the inquiry and its findings in deciding what the solution shall be for the crossing.
I understand that my hon. Friend has been in contact with my Department about the activities of our surveyors on the various routes in the Bideford area. I should explain that with a controversial proposal of this kind there is no secrecy about our surveyors going to an area. My Department prepares studies not only of its own proposals but of everyone else's. When objectors put forward alternatives, therefore, engineers and surveyors from my Department will walk the countryside and survey the landscape in connection with those alternatives. The aim is that the debate at the public inquiry should be carried out more sensibly.
I hope that what I regard as a generous extension of our public consultation and public inquiry role is not taken anywhere, least of all in Bideford, as some kind of sinister activity by our surveyors secretly switching to an alternative strategy. My hon. Friend's constituents are divided over the whole matter. I hope that it will be satisfactorily resolved at the public inquiry next spring.
My hon. Friend then referred to the Barnstaple bypass. The proposal to provide a new bridge at Bideford has been brought forward partly as a result of our concern about the ancient long bridge and partly because it is seen ultimately as a continuous length of new road with the North Devon link. We intend to provide a bypass for Barnstaple which will connect the two. Barnstaple is a historic town. It is a traffic bottleneck. From the expression of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North, I gather that he regards that as an understatement. Most people who have been through Barnstaple would.
In this way an adequate route would be provided joining the industrial enterprises at Bideford and Barnstaple down to the M5. We are also looking at the needs of the Ilfracombe area. They must not be neglected, and that requires improved connections to the motorway.
Barnstaple is not solely the responsibility of my Department. Developments there go beyond the trunk road programme. Devon county council has improved proposals in its draft structure plan and its TPP for the provision of an urban relief road. It looks to us as though the county council's proposals will

give relief to the town centre and to the long bridge in terms of removing congestion, improving road safety and reducing environmental damage caused by traffic. It will also form a new connection between the North Devon link road and the A361, giving access to other parts of North Devon.
Those schemes are being developed by the city council. They will certainly be eligible for grant support by the Government through the system of transport supplementary grant. We are at an early stage of the year to look at Devon's TPP and come to conclusions about the grant. However, I hope that I have said enough to indicate that the proposals for Barnstaple are certainly consistent with our view of the transport needs of North Devon.
I have noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton said about the need for dual carriageway on the route between Ilminster and Exeter. I had less notice of his intention to raise that than I had of other matters. I understand his point, and I realise that he has written to me putting forward a proposal supported by some arguments from a constituent indicating that he believes that a more cost-effective link could be produced by doing some work on the A358 between Ilminster and Taunton. That will be considered, but in a national context.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that more than the local traffic needs of his constituency are involved. These matters link with the high priority that we are giving to the improvement of the A30 through the centre of Cornwall beyond Exeter to provide the best means of taking the traffic from the rest of England to the farthest South-Wet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North referred to industrial development and the status of parts of his constituency for industrial development purposes, most of which are outside my responsibility and sphere. My hon. Friend knows that grants are available to provide roads for industrial development purposes. I am glad to be able to tell him that those grants are unaffected by the recent downgrading of parts of his area to intermediate status. A number of schemes have been discussed with the local authorities—for example, at Barton


Fields, Barnstable Alverdiscott Road, Bideford and Mullacott Cross, Ifracombe—which have been offered grants totalling about £40,000. Another three schemes are under consideration at Barnstable, Bradworthy and Holsworthy.
I hope that I have dealt with as many specific matters as my hon. Friends expect me to deal with on this occasion. I have already said that the Government recognise that the area has transport needs and that all the encouraging industrial devolpment that is taking place in North Devon is heavily dependent on the proper development of transport services in future. It is a beautiful and attractive area. All the schemes that are submitted raise difficult and sensitive considerations. The moment that we start drawing lines on the map and proposing new roads for industrial purposes, we have to consider more seriously than in most areas the environmental damage that might result.
I assure my hon. Friends that we shall deal with all the road improvements with as much sensitivity as is possible. There are occasions in parts of the country where the procedures that we now have for dealing with objections to road schemes, for example, are almost oversensitive. Objectors are allowed to delay worthwhile schemes over quite minute causes. That is perhaps not the position in North Devon, although there are often difficult conflicting issues between transport needs and attractive countryside and agricultural land.
The present system of public consultation, public inquiries, moving properly forward and weighing all the issues in a way that the public can judge and contribute to is important in an area such as North Devon. That is the way in which we hope to proceed. We hope to proceed in such a way as not to delay the decisions that are needed to provide the North Devon link road in the right place and such other links as are required to help the constituencies of my hon. Friends.

BBC EXTERNAL SERVICES

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: From a beautiful North Devon we move to the problems of the BBC overseas service. Having often had a Consolidated Fund debate late at night or early in the morning, I think that there should be a succinct presentation. In the interests of succinctness—I am lucky enough to have drawn an early place in the ballot—I shall not dwell on the value of the BBC overseas service. Let us take that for granted. Most of us have travelled abroad and know at first hand the value of the service. If I do not parade all the good things about the service, that is in the interest of saving time.
The problem is that the BBC external services may be losing £4 million from its annual budget and that that will be taken as a continuing cut year by year. That is about 10 per cent. of the annual sum that provides both the cost of running the external services and the capital investment in new transmitters and relay stations. The loss of the 10 per cent. would mean cuts of between 17 per cent. and 25 per cent. in broadcast output. It is for the Government to decide which of the vernacular language services should be abolished as the Government and not the BBC decide that issue.
Technical factors would make it necessary to abolish groups of services broadcasting to the same areas of the world to obtain the full economy of closing down ancillary services and the appropriate transmitter station.
The BBC—I thank Bob Gregson for this—has given three possible packages that may be used as illustrative examples. The first example is all the vernacular services to Western Europe, Southern Europe and Latin America—that is, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Turkish and Finnish—and the closure of the relay station in the Caribbean which the BBC built with the Federal German external service, Deutsche Welle, a few years ago and now operates with it. The total saving would be £3·9 million.
I was lucky enough to lead the parliamentary delegation to Brazil in 1975, and I think it would be an absolute tragedy if, for example, the BBC overseas


service operating in the Sao Paulo and Rio areas were to close down. Apart from anything else, British trade is very much affected.
The second example is all the vernacular services to the Indian sub-continent, Iran and Burma, £1 million, all those to the Far East and South-East Asia, £1·3 million, and all those to black Africa, £0·6 million, together with the closure of the Far East relay station, which was opened only two months ago. It has been modernised and rebuilt in Singapore at a capital cost of £6 million. The languages lost would be Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, Indonesian, Malay, Hindi, Persian, Urdu, Bengali, Tamil, Nepali, Hausa, Somali and Swahili. It would also be necessary to curtail part of the BBC's monitoring service to make up the package. The total saving would be £4 million. To those of us who care about Asia, it would be a sheer tragedy if that were to happen.
The third example is all the vernacular services to Western and Southern Europe, plus the Arabic service, and a part of the monitoring service, at a total cost of £4 million. To close down the BBC's overseas service to the Arabic world would seem to be madness beyond anything.
These are only examples, and are certainly not BBC proposals. The consequences of such cuts would be far reaching for the trade and strategic interests of Britain and of her allies and friends. The effect on the BBC's external services would be to concentrate, in a disastrous way, into one year the damage that the proposals of the CPRS Think Tank report sought to spread over several years. Those proposals were not accepted by the Government. The effects would not only be that language services would be abolished. There would also be effects on those services that remained, and upon the worldwide English service. They would be impaired in content, without the expertise of the destroyed services, and impaired in audibility as a result of the loss of transmitters. That is the technical view that I have to put forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), the Shadow Foreign Secretary, has written to Lord Carrington and has asked me to

bring to the attention of the House a paragraph of his letter. It reads:
Transistor radios—now estimated to be a billion in number—have become the major source of communication with hundreds of millions of people all over the world. Over the last twenty years there has been an increase of 300 per cent. in international broadcasting. If the BBC overseas service surrenders its international wavelengths, there will, indeed, be many alternative and not necessarily friendly 'takers'. We understand that, if these cuts were implemented, the BBC's overseas service would fall below that provided by Albania and by North Korea—a pathetic, insulting and disgraceful situation to achieve for such a petty cut in expenditure.
Is it really very wise that Bush House and the overseas service should be mixed up inextricably with the departmental budget of the Minister of State, who is kindly waiting to reply? Some of us rather doubt whether this should go on to the Foreign Office budget at all. because there may have to be all-round cuts, and the considerations that would possibly justify some cutback in other Foreign Office activities might not apply to the overseas service of the BBC.
I state it as a belief—perhaps the Minister will contradict me if he has better information—that the BBC is not crying "Wolf" on this and that such cuts, if they were to come about, would be cuts where pruning would kill the plant. The services are down to bedrock already, and it would be extremely damaging if any of the proposals that we have heard about were to go ahead.
This is the use of the Consolidated Fund, if I may say so, in the nature of a pre-emptive strike. I hope that it will be taken in that spirit. If the Minister says that there is nothing in any of the fears I have put forward, I shall be delighted.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I hope that the House will allow me to add just a little more meat to the tenor and direction of his argument, because we share the desire to try to get the Government to rethink the reported intent of cutting back the BBC's external service.
It is obvious that the BBC and the foreign service cannot be exempt from the cuts in Government expenditure. But


the House may not be aware that the cuts in the external service which the Government are reputed to be seeking now fall after five years of solid cutting of its expenditure on services and its expenditure on capital, which is necessary underpinning for those services. I remind the House that in 1974–75 the BBC had to put in hand cuts of £390,000. This was the fleecing of all of the fat of the external services. It was the fleecing of printing and publishing programmes, publicity, overheads and extra staff. It was also the start of cuts in its broadcasting activity, in that it was in that year that the BBC had to cut back on its Caribbean service. At the same time it started, by direction, on a cutback in capital expenditure of £1,760,000. That capital expenditure cut had to be spread over the subsequent four years.
By some miracle, in 1975–76 the BBC was asked to make no additional cuts. In 1976–77 it was asked to cut its budget by £288,000—trimming the French, German, Romanian, Arabic, Chinese and Bulgarian overseas broadcasts, and dropping entirely the broadcasting service for Sri Lanka. The dropping of the broadcasting service in Sinhala to Sri Lanka was brought most dramatically back to the head of the external services of the BBC, who just the other day received as a guest in his office a young lady whom he had trained and who now worked for the Chinese. It was on the basis of the work that she had learnt to do for the BBC in broadcasting to Sri Lanka that she was now working for the Chinese broadcasting activities in that same direction.
In 1977–78 the BBC was asked to absorb £541,000 cuts, which cut sadly into its transcription activities, and postponed even further capital investment than the £1,760,000 cuts to which I have referred. In 1978–79—the current year just past—it was asked to absorb cuts of £732,000, which required a cut of 3 per cent. in manpower, and reduced the quality and put under strain for the first time its capacity to provide first-class programming over air.
It is against that background of five years of cuts that the Foreign Office is now asking the BBC to absorb a further cut of £4 million. During the past five years, the BBC has had to postpone vital

investment and has felt able to do so in anticipation of better budgets in the future. In order to do that, it has preserved the airwaves time, the quality of the programming and the quality of the people within the external broadcasting services. That is reflected in the fact that over recent years it has built up an audience of more than 75 million throughout the world.
You, Mr. Speaker, and I could give up eating for a day, or perhaps even two days, but only in anticipation of eating again on one of these days. In contrast, the Foreign Office is asking the BBC to go into a period of starvation for another indeterminate length of time.
So much for the background. I should like to comment on the dramatic instances that the hon. Member for West Lothian gave of what these cuts might be. The hon. Gentleman mentioned in one of the packages that the BBC has given as an instance the fact that it would have to cut back on its Chinese service. Is it not peculiar that at this time, when this country is trying to build bridges to China rather than cut off contact with it, the external service should be asked possibly to excise its broadcasting in that direction?
Even more pertinent to today, there is the fact that the service might have to curtail, if not completely cut, the broadcasting in Vietnamese. Is it too peculiar a thought to put to the Government Front Bench that the BBC external broadcasting to Vietnam at this time may be the single strongest world deterrent to that country's Government acting in an even more awful way than it is now, in hoofing people out in the atrocious way that we have debated at other times?
As the hon. Gentleman asked, is it not extraordinary to consider at this time a cut which could excise at a stroke all the English broadcasting that was started from a relay station in the Far East only two months ago, covering all the English-speaking population of Singapore, the Pacific, Australia, New Zealand and all of Asia? I find it almost incredible.
The sad truth is that wherever the cuts came, whatever languages were included in the packages of cuts which would inevitable have to be made if £4 million were excised from the budget, there would be a knock-on effect on English-language


broadcasting, the content and probably the reach of English language broadcasting almost anywhere in the world.
I should like to make four comments. First, the cuts are being debated on the eve of the bargaining that must take place at the World Administrative Radio Conference which is about to be called. Our delegates, our civil servants, going to that conference will go in a state of absolute nudity because of the threat of the £4 million cuts hanging over their heads. That is in sorry contrast with the co-ordinated way in which the Communist world will approach that conference.
Not only shall we be letting down ourselves, but in this instance we shall be letting down the developing world, with which Britain, in this area of activity, shares identical interests, not only in terms of the type of broadcasting, but a technical interest in the mutual desire for broader broadcasting bands. Our delegates will be left without political initiative, and there will be no British case to be put.
The hon. Gentleman has already touched on my second comment—the fact that if the cuts go through it will mean asking the BBC to absorb in one year the cuts that would have been spread over four years if that absurd suggestion from the Think Tank's review of the foreign service had been carried through. It is a good illustration of the absurdity of these cuts to cast one's mind back to the Think Tank's suggestion for its cuts to reduce the broadcasting on the basis of one-third of each day's broadcasting, which would have turned the whole BBC external broadcasting activity into a shambles.
My third comment concerns the Foreign Office as a whole. It is appalling the way in which the cuts in the Foreign Office activity have fallen not only on this aspect of its services—the BBC external service—but on its information services as a whole.
I believe it is now true to say that there is not a Foreign Office information officer between Delhi and Tokyo. How do we today try to project this country's interests to the other countries of the world in which we maintain representation if we do not have information officers of a quality, a stature and a

reality in the same way as the other countries represented in these areas?
Things are worse than that. Not only have we excised these information officers we are excising their spirit, their ghost, their backdrop, by threatening the external services of the BBC. It is open to question whether some of the embassies in these areas would not—if they searched their hearts, as some may have done—admit that it would be better to close down ambassadorial representation if in place of it it would be possible to continue the BBC's external coverage of those areas.
That leads me to the fourth area of comment, somewhat closer to home. That, peculiar as it may seem to some hon. Members, touches on defence. What fundamental sense does it make if we have the correct intent of increasing our military defence expenditure by 3 per cent. when, at the same moment, the Government ask for a 10 per cent. decrease in winning people's minds? Is it too much to suggest that the total cost we envisage in this debate is covered by one of those tragic losses of aircraft in the seas around this country? That may put the debate into the proper context.
What we are discussing is a cut of between 17 per cent. and 25 per cent. of the total programme output of the BBC external service. As the hon. Member for West Lothian pointed out, we rank fifth at this moment in world broadcasting terms—behind the Soviet Union, the United States, the Warsaw Pact countries, Communist China and West Germany. If we carry through the cuts envisaged by the Government, we shall sink below North Korea, Albania and Egypt. What a strange position that would be for us.
These cuts threaten the name of the BBC. They undercut its reputation as the source of a balanced, independent, worldwide news service. Let us not threaten to return to the 1930s. When Lord Reith set up what was then the Empire service, he was condemned by the then Government and threatened with the possibility that he would have to raise the money for that service through the BBC licence. Mussolini and Hitler proved Lord Reith to be right and the then Government wrong. Do we have to face a position


when some foreign Power will prove our Government wrong?

11.38 p.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I believe that we should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this subject tonight, not least because as politicians we ought to know that although communication is not always a matter of language, it is fundamentally important to be able to put one's ideas into a language which is easily understandable by both friends and foes.
There is one important point that we ought to make tonight which I do not think has quite been appreciated by the Government. The BBC world service is probably one service—perhaps even the only one—in the transmission of information which is widely trusted. It is known not to be an instrument of Government propaganda. Such a responsibility and reputation should not lightly be abandoned.
I got my early training in a world service of another European radio station, not the BBC. That nation, small though it was, believed it to be vital to spend a certain amount on conveying to other nations the views that it thought to be important.
Wherever I have travelled in the world, I have found that the BBC has been listened to and taken note of. It has not always been agreed with, but at least it has been trusted to the extent that people were prepared to follow its bulletins and to believe a great deal of their content.
I am not sure that the Minister understands that broadcasting is not an ordinary service. We are not talking about taking off the odd bus and putting it back into service when the money is available. If we cut our radio service, we lose not only a degree of expertise but our frequencies. As has been said, there are many people waiting to take those frequencies, and such people are not always as independent as the BBC world service. They will be concerned not with the international division of radio time but with selling their viewpoint to millions of people throughout the world.
If we lose our expertise, we shall lose the people who understand world broad-

casting and have the ability to get across to their audiences. In our overloaded electronic households we tend to regard the radio as a secondary function. In many other countries radio has a primary function. People listen to it.

Mr. Dalyell: That is right.

Mrs. Dunwoody: They take in what comes through to them on their radio sets. In many instances it is the one certain form of the media which is with them constantly. It is not by accident that in many developing countries there has been an explosion in the ownership of radios. Radio programmes give people not only information but a means of broadening their cultural and factual backgrounds. Many Third World nations have readily grasped at this opportunity.
When I was in Kenya at the beginning of the year, I had a personal but real demonstration of the value of the world service. Two American priests had come out of Uganda for the short period of the anniversary of Idi Amin's takeover. Those Catholic priests, who were able to maintain their positions somewhat precariously inside Uganda, knew that they were at risk. Therefore, it was their habit to come out of Uganda during that period.
One point that they made to me more strongly than any other was that I should convey to the BBC world service "You represent our only lifeline. We rely on you, even when things are happening inside Uganda, to know exactly what our future is. Were it not for the world service, we should be totally cut off and deprived of reliable information. If that service were to be cut back, we should be at risk."
That is only one example of what is happening day by day. My local radio station—Radio Stoke—is presently transmitting a series of language lessons called "Let us speak English". There are some Vietnamese refugees in the area to the south of my constituency. Those lessons are compiled by the BBC at Bush House. Were that kind of facility not to be available, because it was not being used in the world service, the BBC would not be able to do the marvellous job that it is now doing in helping to absorb that small group of boat people into an English community by teaching them English and


getting them to understand how we operate.
I hope that the Minister will not say, as Ministers are often compelled to say, "We cannot exclude one particular aspect of Government policy. We cannot make special exceptions. We cannot insulate the BBC world service against cuts. All areas must bear the brunt of cuts." If that is the attitude of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it will destroy something that it may not be able to put together again. The cost to this country in its overseas relations and perhaps even the cost in political stability in the areas where we have to cut back our broadcasting, whether the Middle East, Africa or South America, will be so great that the House will have the right to condemn the Government and condemn them strongly.
I hope that every hon. Member will join me in saying to the Minister that this is not a party matter but a matter of British interest. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that it is in the British interest that we speak.

11.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker): I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this important matter and to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) for his contribution. I also listened with close attention to the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody).
I think that all hon. Members endorse the view that the BBC external services play an important role for this country. En the course of their time in the House, all hon. Members travel abroad and find, almost universally, that the BBC external services are highly regarded for their accuracy, integrity and reliability. As the hon. Member for Crewe said, the services are widely trusted across the world. Their standards are emulated by the services of other contries. I was speaking recently to the officers of a similar service in a friendly country and they said with pride that they thought that they did as well as the BBC. That was an implicit tribute to the standing of the BBC external services in the world.
The hon. Member for Crewe mentioned some of her recollections of tributes to the importance of the external services.

All hon. Members who have travelled abroad will have similar recollections. I remember that the first time that I became aware of the role of the external services was on a visit to Egypt as a newly elected hon. Member. In a small village I suddenly heard the familiar six pips of the BBC and saw an Egyptian peasant sitting outside his modest house waiting for the BBC service.
More recently, I travelled to another country in Africa and I asked one of the leading members of the community in a small town whether the people ever listened to the BBC overseas services. He replied "Every afternoon at about five o'clock the whole town comes to a halt and we all gather round and, over cups of coffee, listen to the BBC." I also spoke recently to a dissident who came here from the Soviet Union. One of the first things that he wanted to do was to visit the BBC external services to advise them about what he regarded as improvements that they could make in their Russian service. That was a tribute to the importance of the Russian service. He thought it important that he should go immediately and tell the BBC how it could improve its service.
I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication of the staff of the external services. They often work long hours and they sometimes face certain hazards—as we saw in the case of Georgi Markov. The condition of their premises in Bush House is perhaps not up to the standard that one hopes to see in 1979.
The House will know that the Government are engaged in reviewing all aspects of future plans for public expenditure. As my right hon. Friends have said, the conclusions reached will, we hope, be published as usual in the autumn. The review is not yet complete. I must disappoint the hon. Member for Crewe. I have to say that the BBC's external services cannot be excluded from this review. They are financed by a grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and thus their expenditure is comparable with the expenditure made by other Government Departments.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a specific question—namely, whether it is desirable that Bush House should be geared to the Foreign Office Vote?

Mr. Blaker: That is a very much wider question. I have taken note of the point that the hon. Gentleman made in his speech, but I do not think that this is the point with which we are particularly concerned tonight.
The review that we are conducting is a review of the projected expenditure plans for next year, the plans drawn up by the former Government. This is a perfectly normal procedure. It is normal that this should happen at this time of year and that a White Paper should be produced in October or November giving the Government's conclusions about future spending. In recent years the timetable has slipped a bit. The White Paper has tended to appear in the early part of the following year, but we have reverted to the previous practice.
The fact is that if we were to leave the spending plans of the previous Government untouched—I am speaking generally now—we would be faced with the prospect of making substantial increases in taxation, direct and indirect, in order to meet large increases in spending. That is why we are conducting a rigorous review.
However, I must remind the hon. Lady that it is not only the Conservative Government who have been conducting a review which covers the BBC external services. She will remember that in the previous Government's White Paper, Cmnd. 7308 of August 1978, it was pointed out that the previous Government were conducting a review of the vernacular services. If she looks at paragraph 62 of that White Paper, she will find the following passage:
Cuts can however be made in some of the vernacular services. The pattern of vernacular services should not be regarded as immutable. A review of all the vernacular services is being carried out in order to examine ways of concentrating resources where they can be put to the best use.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that the Minister will acquit me of any double standards if I say that I would not have accepted that from my own Government. What I want to know from him is where the Foreign Office will take the responsibility of actually cutting specific services. It is all very well saying that one is prepared to look at what is happening to see whether it is possible to

change the vernacular services. What will be twice as difficult is for any member of the Foreign Office to come to the House and say which of those services is to be wiped out. That is the alternative that the Government are facing.

Mr. Blaker: I was simply making the point that the previous Government were also conducting a review of the vernacular services and that what we are now doing is to review the BBC external services as part of a comprehensive review of Government spending, which is a normal feature of the Government calendar.
I have been asked to comment on the implications of a cut of £4 million—a figure which has been widely canvassed. I cannot now comment on the implications of any cut, if a cut were to be made, because, as I say, the review has not yet been concluded. If I were to make any comments on the possible scenarios to which the hon. Member for West Lothian referred, I would be discussing something which is entirely hypothetical.

Mr. Dalyell: If it is so hypothetical, why did the chairman of the board of governors of the BBC, Sir Michael Swann, find it necessary to go and beard the Foreign Secretary last night?

Mr. Blaker: The purpose of the chairman in visiting the Foreign Secretary was, I understand, to express his anxiety about the possibility of cuts. The Foreign Secretary told him that the BBC external services must be included in the current review of Government spending, as I have told the House.

Mr. Dalyell: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to kid us. We are not as stupid as all that. The fact is that the chairman of the board of governors of the BBC does not go to see the Foreign Secretary if there is nothing to talk about.

Mr. Blaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not listen to me. Of course there was something to talk about, and I have just described the purpose of the chairman's visit and the answer given by the Foreign Secretary. If the Government decide in the end that cuts are necessary in the external services of the BBC, there will be consultations with the BBC about


the ways in which any damage to the BBC can be minimised.
I have noted the points made, and I agree with hon. Members about the merits and importance of the BBC external services. If cuts have to be made, it will not be because of failings on the part of the BBC but for much wider reasons.

Mrs. Dunwoody: With respect, it is not good enough to say that of course the Goverment will consult the BBC before any cuts are made. Although the BBC controls the content of the programmes, the Foreign Office will have to decide which services will be cut. The hon. Gentleman's soothing words, kind though they are, do not convey any information that we did not previously have. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he will not come to the House and make clear to hon. Members which services are to be cut, and consult the House before taking an axe to the BBC external services? If that is so, he is failing in his duty. It is not acceptable to say that the Government will talk to the board of governors when that point is reached. Before he leaves the House tonight, will the hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking that whatever decisions are taken, whatever cuts he thinks are necessary, he will come to the House to justify them and give us the opportunity to tell him what we think of the decisions?

Mr. Blaker: As I have said several times, the review is not yet complete. When decisions are taken, they will be announced in the usual way.

MOTOR INDUSTRY

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Jocelyn Cadbury: We have ranged from beautiful North Devon through the BBC world service and now come to the motor industry, and hon. Members are probably in a state of culture shock with the changes of topic this evening.
I was prompted to speak in the debate on the motor industry by the dramatic and tragic news that in the first five months of this year Britain was a net importer of motor vehicles and components. The full measure of the slide that has taken place in our motor in-

dustry can be gauged from the fact that in 1977 the surplus on that account was £1·3 billion. By 1978 that surplus had fallen to £776 million, and the deficit for the first five months of this year was £212 million. A further indication of how badly we have done in our motor industry is that in 1973 three-quarters of all cars sold in this country were British made, and last month vehicle importers accounted for 55 per cent. of all new United Kingdom registrations.
It is not always appreciated, at any rate south of Watford, how fundamental the motor industry is to the British economy, but men from Birmingham, such as myself, tend to be rather better informed. In the West Midlands some quarter of a million people are employed directly or indirectly in the production of motor vehicles. British Leyland alone employs 9 per cent. of the working population of Birmingham.
It is not only the assembly of motor vehicles that is so crucial to the West Midlands and to the country as a whole as a source of employment. It is also the production of motor components. The fortunes of such companies as Lucas, GKN, Dunlop and Birmetal are inextricably linked to Leyland, Ford and Vauxhall. Indeed, each year BL spends nearly £2,000 million among 7,000 United Kingdom businesses, and it uses 40 per cent. of the total output of sheet steel from the British Steel Corporation.
But there is a second aspect of the strategic importance of the British motor industry and of BL in particular, and that is its impact on the balance of payments. BL is Britain's largest manufacturing exporter, with overseas sales of about £1,000 million. It is a mark of the significance of the motor industry to our balance of payments that its relative failure to compete both at home and abroad is probably the single most important reason why, despite the benefits of North Sea oil, our visible trade balance has deteriorated so dramatically over the last year.
What is especially worrying is that a rise in the volume of imported components is inevitably following in the wake of the present avalanche of foreign vehicles. If BL's market share declines, so soon afterwards do the market shares of Lucas, GKN and all the other component manufacturers.
Another distressing tendency is for the international car companies—that is, Ford, Vauxhall and Peugeot—to import from the Continent ever-increasing percentages of the vehicles they sell in the United Kingdom. For example, all the new Ford Granadas we see driving around this country were made in Germany, and many of those we see driven by some Government Departments were also made in Germany. One will not find Lucas headlights on these cars. They are all fitted with Bosch equipment. I leave the semantics of that to others to work out.
Because of its importance as an employer and its huge impact on the balance of trade, the House should not be in any doubt about the appalling consequences of a complete collapse of the British motor industry. At the risk of over-dramatisation, I would liken the plight of our motor industry to Britain in 1940, facing the threat of imminent foreign invasion. But I am by nature an optimist—I must be, otherwise I would not be in this House today, knowing the majority I have—and I believe that somehow a Dunkirk spirit will be aroused and we shall ultimately roll back this river of imports from Turin, Wolfsberg and Osaka.
I believe that we now have a chance of success, for two main reasons. First, we have a Government who recognise the need for incentives for workers and managers alike. In particular, they have already rationalised regional policy. Regional policy did grave damage to the motor industry. Over the last 15 years, it induced the managements of the motor companies to scatter their new plants all over the country against their better economic judgment.
I referred in my maiden speech to the saga of the door of an Austin Mini, which travels several hundred miles around England and Wales and visits four factories before it is finally installed on a finished car in my constituency—four factories to make a car door. By contrast, at the Volkswagen plant at Wolfsberg, bits of metal go in at one end and finished Volkswagens emerge at the other end. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on his rationalisation of the regional aid programme.
The second reason for my optimism about the future is that BL is now led by a management team which is showing determination in taking the necessary steps to make the company competitive. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) and I recently had the pleasure of meeting Sir Michael Edwardes, chairman of BL, and Mr. Horrocks, managing director of Austin-Morris. We were reassured to hear that the company's recovery programme is going well. Industrial relations, productivity and quality standards are all beginning to improve. But we cannot expect miracles overnight. BL now has to make up for two decades of poor industrial relations, the low level of investment of the 1960s and the failure in the past to produce new models of the right design.
I think that it is widely accepted that a modern industrial economy cannot exist without a flourishing domestic motor industry. The life of this Parliament will probably decide whether a British-owned motor industry will survive. It took six years for the Germans to turn round Volkswagen. I ask the Government to remember that the British motor industry needs to be given time to recover its strength, and urge them to give their wholehearted support to the industry, and to BL in particular, in the struggle against the four-wheeled invasion from overseas.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. John Patten: My interest in regional policy as it affects the motor car industry is, of course, moulded by the fact that my constituency, Oxford, has a very substantial number of people employed in the BL plant at Cowley. Some 22,900 people—about 13·5 per cent of the working population of my constituency—work in BL.
I wish to restrict my remarks to regional policy, the motor car industry and BL alone. I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends, along with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) and his right hon. and hon. Friends, if they were here showing their remarkable interest in the motor car industry, would join me in saying that they did not want to see BL spend the rest of its life as a permanent pensioner of the State. The hon. Member for Nuneaton and I may


disagree about the future ownership of BL. He may feel, rightly from his point of view, that BL should remain in State ownership. I do not share that view. But I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House hope that BL will soon be producing motor cars which are not largely subsidised by the taxpayer.
Unfortunately, there are a number of obstacles in the way of this course, and, following the admirable remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) on the structural importance of BL—

Mr. Les Huckfield: Since the hon. Gentleman has just entered the House, he will recognise that those of us who represent motor manufacturing industries always do the best we can to present the true facts as we see them. It is not a fact that BL is being subsidised in the way that he describes. British Leyland has to pay interest on the money that it receives from the National Enterprise Board. In turn, the NEB has to pay interest on the money that it receives from the Government. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that BL makes a profit, albeit not a large profit. But in saying that in some way BL is subsidised by the British taxpayer the hon. Gentleman is rather glossing over the true facts.

Mr. Patten: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observations. As he said, I am very new to the House, and I may take a long time to come to the point of my argument. I agree that BL receives its money from a number of different sources. But there is no doubt that a substantial amount of that money, however it is funded, comes directly from the taxpayer, even though there is a financial burden on the management of BL and on the NEB to produce a return in terms of profit.
If I may, I shall return to what I see as four substantial obstacles to BL beginning in the 1980s, as its corporate plan suggests, to make a genuine commercial return to full profitability—an aim which Sir Michael Edwardes and his management team have and, I know, hold very strongly.
The first obstacle is the general state of the domestic economy today. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor

of the Exchequer said only yesterday that he found the prospects for the economy in the short term frighteningly bad. That has to be worrying for BL.
Secondly, I do not see that the motor car industry in demand terms has very strong prospects in the next two or three years, especially following the recent oil crisis. I think that we shall see demand levelling off over the next two or three years for new motor cars, except for those which are fuel-efficient at the lower end.
Thirdly, in the United Kingdom anyway, recent figures reveal that the cost of running a motor car increases year by year. The Hertz car leasing firm produced figures today showing that the running cost of the average family car was some 18p a mile. That is a 22 per cent. rise over the cost of running the same car last year.
The most significant problem that BL faces is consequent on the strength of the pound. There is no doubt that the strength of the pound is making BL's position as a competitive exporter and an importer of certain components extremely difficult. This will make the internal generation of capital for future investment, to which the hon. Member for Nuneaton referred, that much more difficult to achieve in the next three or four years.
Hon. Members may say that other car manufacturers in countries with strong currencies, such as Germany, where the deutschemark is strong, manage to export substantial numbers of motor cars for which there is a great demand. That may be the case. But those manufacturers are starting from a much stronger base than that from which BL is starting today. I have no wish to go back over the industrial history of BL during the past 15 or 16 years and try to apportion blame between Government, management, trade unions, work force, investors and the rest. But there is no doubt that BL is in a weak position. The power to generate its own investment capital, which is vital in my constituency of Oxford if the new middle-range car, the LC10, is to go into production in 1981 and 1982, is being severely undermined by the present level of the pound.
What is the position in terms of regional policy? We have clearly not


seen the last of BL and its financial relationship with the Government. We also have to look carefully at the role and relations of BL with foreign investors. I applaud the management of BL for its development of trading and manufacturing links with the Japanese firm, Honda. This is critically important. Increasingly, as members of the European Community, we have to look at regional policy not simply within a national framework but within a European and, I suggest, a worldwide framework. Foreign investment, particularly in the motor industry, will become more important.
There are some people who say that BL has made a mistake in stretching its line by joining with Honda, a small to medium-sized Japanese firm. I do not believe that BL is mistaken. Those who say that a link with Renault would have been better are totally wrong. I believe that Renault, a completely State-owned firm, is much more a lame duck than any motor car manufacturing company in the United Kingdom. BL and Renault have comparable work forces. In the motor car division, Renault employs about 104,000 and BL 117,000. Renault has a much greater share of its domestic market, about 34 per cent. compared with the unfortunately low 23 per cent. BL share of the United Kingdom domestic market. Yet on 1978 figures Renault performed less well than BL. BL turned in better after-tax profits.
The temptation for BL management to take an easy course and to turn to a nearby European partner like Renault was rightly avoided. BL is on the right lines in beginning to strengthen its links with Japanese manufacturers such as Honda. I hope that the Government will endeavour to foster these links. I hope that we shall hear observations to that end from my hon. Friend the Minister tonight.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. John G. Blackburn: I am humble before Almighty God, before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker and before fellow right hon. and hon. Members at being given this opportunity to deliver my maiden speech. I reveal a large amount of courage to face the packed Benches opposite and the crowded

Galleries that have gathered for this momentous occasion.
I am the first Conservative Member for Parliament ever to be elected for my constituency. The first task I have is easy—to pay a sincere, warm and generous tribute to the former Member, Dr. Colin Phipps, who had the unique gift of being a good constituency Member. He was equally respected and popular, and because of that it is a heavy responsibility for me to represent the constituency.
The only gifts I bring to the House are experience and service. The day I completed my education at university, I enlisted as a Regular soldier. I served for four years in the Armed Services of the late King, and on my release I joined the police service and served with some distinction for 12 years. For the last 15 years I have been walking the avenues of industry in the West Midlands. I am, naturally, a trade unionist. In January this year, from a membership in my branch of 268, the 23 souls that gathered re-elected me for the tenth successive year as branch secretary.
My constituency is in the heart of the Black Country. I cannot say that in Dudley, West we produce motor cars, but I can say that we produce the components for that industry. My constituency owes its very existence to men and women and families who have placed their life savings in forming small businesses to serve the engineering industry of the West Midlands, of which the motor car is such an integral part. It was their vision and dedication which brought about these prosperous and successful small businesses.
One of the by-products of those businesses was something called profit. To me, the word "profit" is not obscene. Indeed, from profit come pay, pension schemes, welfare benefits, sports and social facilities and benevolent schemes. Much more important, from profit eventually should come investment; and from investment comes increased productivity and more jobs. To me, these are the fundamentals of the engineering industries centred in the West Midlands. I see here this evening many hon. Members representing constituencies in that area.
Tragically the picture that I have painted is not the one that has been


portrayed to me in recent years. I am sad to say that the picture is just the opposite. Bankruptcies have occurred on a wide scale. Because of little or no profit, there are no job security, no job prospects and no continuity. The end product, tragically, is unemployment. When the last Conservative Government were in power, at no time did unemployment in the West Midlands exceed 2 per cent. Today the unemployment rate is 5·7 per cent.
I applaud the concept in the Finance Bill. The word "incentive" appears in that Bill. It refers to incentive to work, to save; incentive to enterprise, to commerce and unions; and incentive to the investor, who has been forgotten, and to the worker and director.
The motor industry could not function without the products from my constituency—steel, rubber and plastics. Those products would not be manufactured without viable small businesses.
I have travelled within my constituency for the last five years. A message is conveyed when one passes a factory called "Bill Hankey and Son Ltd.". That is what industry is about. A father opens a limited liability company business to service the motor industry. Those magic words "and son" are added later. That creates continuity in a family business, and it thrives.
It is not the Government's task to run industry. Governments and politicians are incapable of doing that. The role of the House of Commons is not to run industry. The solemn responsibility of the House is to create an environment and an incentive under which industry can develop and prosper. That is the reason for tonight's debate.
We have languished at the bottom of the league of industrial investment. We must invest in new plant and new machinery in the motor industry. We must have faith in the work forces of the West Midlands and trust them to produce the goods.
The country regards this Government as a Government of vision. The country expects this Government to create the industrial society which we seek. We are all of one mind on that. The people I represent say that they want less government, not more; less legislation, not

more; less Government interference, and to be allowed to develop their businesses.
We cannot operate without the strong who can provide for the weak. It is not the Government's task to bail out those companies which behave commercially irresponsibly. The money to bail them out comes from the companies which have acted commercially and responsibly.
It is difficult to develop a components industry to supply the motor car trade without some continuity, some certainty and some planning. It is impossible, without these factors, to plan production, costing, agency arrangements and even publicity and promotional budgets. How can an industry plan when the market is so unstable?
The challenge facing us in this debate is to support every effort by British Leyland to become financially sound. When it does, the small companies in my constituency will know that they have a future to plan for.
Perhaps I may be permitted at this late hour to tell you a bedside story, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has a close relationship to this debate. A clergyman on holiday went to a local church with his family. As he entered the church, he put 50p in the box as he went in to worship. When the preacher did not arrive, the elders of the church invited him to take the service, which he did. As he was leaving, the sidesman said that whatever was in the box was always given to the preacher. The clergyman's son looked up at his father and said "Daddy, if you had put more in, you would have got more out." That is what this debate is all about.
Dudley, West, the West Midlands and the whole country as well as the Chancellor, the Government and this House have placed their faith and trust in industry and the trade unions to produce the growth we seek. I believe that that faith is not misplaced.
I conclude my maiden speech by dedicating myself to be worthy of the high calling. I can find no higher.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I offer the greatest praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) for his maiden speech, which I believe demonstrated the


great strength he had already shown us in this House as a friend. He has represented his country, himself and his constituents well tonight. He has been an upholder of the law, as the wearer of a uniform, and I am sure that we shall see his long law arm extended for many years as the representative of Dudley, West. I thank him for a most invigorating and sincere maiden speech.
I notice that the occupancy of the Labour Benches has diminished by 50 per cent. in the last few moments. That surprises me because I should have thought that the survival of the West Midlands and the Government's economic policy would be of great importance to the Opposition. Birmingham and the surrounding area have been described as the iron heart of England. But that heart has become weakened and enfeebled by the regional policy of previous Governments. The policy may have been altruistic in the beginning, but it has proved to be a dictum which, while seeking to strengthen the weak, has resulted in weakening the strong.
It has been a dictum which made it more difficult for us in the Midlands to carry out our trade, a dictum which has been beset and bedevilled by previous Governments manipulating the home sales of motor cars with hire-purchase controls, thus inhibiting the export of motor cars. It is an industry which became subject to union pressure to preserve jobs which regrettably were obsolescent. It became overburdened by the man-hours which went into the creation of the end unit, a unit which regrettably ceased to compete, especially with the reduction of the tariff barriers within the EEC. That led to a massive intrusion by foreign motor cars, especially those from Japan.
The Brummies are intensive users of the motor car, probably the most intensive users in Britain. Our economy, and certainly that of Britain, depends in the main on the well-being of heavy industry and the motor car industry. In my constituency—Birmingham, Yardley—as in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), whose erudite contribution I compliment, there is almost total dependence. Probably half of those involved in manufacturing in Yardley are with the motor industry, either with

British Leyland or with another of the motor companies.
We hope to see a reversal of that which has occurred at British Leyland. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry in his pronouncements on regional policy will have helped to an extent, but we feel that we need more than that. At present we are very much a three-horse town or, should I say, a three-car town—Morris, Rover and Metro-Camm. That is the position in Birmingham, and that is the city's weakness. That is its Achilles heel. However the planners plan, they cannot turn the powerhouse of Birmingham into a warehouse. They cannot take away its great capacity for production and make it a service industry city. They must leave with it that native ability of craft to create and to sell.
It is no good Birmingham being merely an assembler of foreign kits, of Meccano sets that it puts together. We ask that our indigenous skills be allowed to remain with us. The Meriden co-operative is threatened. I hope that the outcome will be successful. I have no political bias. Some of my constituents are at risk. They will be out of a job if the outcome of that venture is not a happy one. I wish the managing director of that venture great success in what he is doing.
Any further threat to the Midland motor industry would have a ripple effect which could wet many others and turn into a tidal wave if it reverberated through the West Midlands and the length and breadth of the land. Birmingham could become a ghost town the like of which would make the Klondike after the gold rush seem like a redevelopment area. I am not exaggerating. There would be a reaction and a reverberation throughout the length and breadth of the land.
Within a mile or two of Yardley, within British Leyland alone we have no fewer than 22 units or plants, whether at Rover, Chester Road, Washwood Heath, Lode Lane, Solihull or elsewhere. The total turnover is nerly £1,400 million a year. That is 44 per cent. of total sales. British Leyland employs directly about 164,000 people, including in the West Midlands alone about 78,000 people, and 7·8 per cent. of those are in Birmingham.
Altogether, with dealerships and upward and downward catchments of persons, British Leyland employs about 500,000 people in this country, and £165 million is paid back into the Exchequer in income tax by the employees of British Leyland and about £81 million in national insurance contributions.
A sum of £2,000 million is spent annually between 7,000 businesses of this country and, as was said earlier by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), a quite substantial amount of interest is paid. Last year, £25 million of interest was paid back to the Government on loans and investments that the Government had put in.
I return to my constituency of Yardley. We have already lost, by rationalisation, motor component factories, and through this rationalisation there has been a loss of jobs. In Wilmott Breeden we have had closures. We must seek to reverse the rot.
I put to my hon. Friend the Minister a suggestion that he may not immediately accept. The Government should consider removing VAT from the sale of motor cars of British manufacture for a limited period, either a year or two years, until they have had a chance to recover.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does my hon. Friend mean VAT or does he mean the special car tax?

Mr. Bevan: The special car tax, if my hon. Friend would prefer it that way. I accept the correction.
I also ask that instead of the continuation of international deals, which help in the short term and give strength to a company, a climate should be formed enabling the City institutions to provide, for companies such as British Leyland, the capital needed to produce their own indigenous new models.
The shock figures issued by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders in the first part of 1979, showing a decline into a £212 million loss, for the first time ever in this country, are indeed frightening. That is after an average balance of payments surplus in the motor industry of £1,235 million over five years.
We must ensure that that trend is reversed. We can do it only by creating

our own models in the long term and by not being too receptive as individuals of the contributions of the multinationals. Between 1960 and 1978, Britain's car output fell by 0·130 million, while France's increased by three times, Germany's by two and a quarter times, Italy's by three times and Japan's by about 36 times. These are the frightening statistics.
In Germany, France and Italy, imports remained almost the same between 1970 and 1978. In the United Kingdom they have risen staggeringly from 12 per cent. to 50 per cent. and in this quarter, I understand, are in excess of 55 per cent. Some of our Birmingham component manufacturers are working at only 65 per cent. capacity. Our job, therefore, must be to build up, as we can, our own indigenous industries.
There are two other factors affecting us. One is the rising value of the pound—something that we would have cheered a few months ago. This is having the effect of making it more difficult for us to sell overseas. The chairman of a group of Midland companies, some of which are concerned in the motor business, said that his American market is crumbling because of the rising value of the pound.
The second thing that must concern us all is the dedicated intent of the car industry itself to reduce capacity by 5 per cent. in the next year, so as to take account of the fuel position. Of course, there will be less receptivity by the customer as a result of the rising cost of fuel. Therefore, because of the imbalance between productivity and sales, and between Europe, Japan and here, I ask that the Government discuss a common policy of production with our European partners that takes account not of the figures of disadvantage that exist in respect of this country and the Midland producers of motor cars but of an average of those figures over, say, the last 20 years.
I appreciate the plan of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I think he said that British Leyland would be returned to private enterprise within two years. I hope that I read my uewspaper correctly. I did not read Hansard, and I apologise if that is not correct. However, I would add three covenants—provided that there is no loss


of capital, no loss of jobs and no endangering of the West Midlands economy. Otherwise, I am personally happy to accept the mixed economy as it presently exists.
As a past chairman of transport in the West Midlands, I am proud of the part that we have played in developing the public service vehicle. We should be speaking in terms of the motor vehicle, not just the motor car. When British Leyland went up to Lancashire, we lost the Fleet-line and Coventry suffered with substantial unemployment as a result. We have now brought back bus manufacturing to the West Midlands by supporting the Metrobus. When I signed the first £7½ million order for 75 Metrobuses and 75 Titans, I was proud so to do. It preserved 3,000 jobs in Birmingham. It was a socio-factor carried on a bipartisan basis. There are now orders for about 1,100 Metrobuses and about 800 Titans. They are now going fast into production.
There is a mighty and excellent industry in the bus vehicle sector which contributes dynamically to our exports. I urge the Government to preserve, and not remove, the specific bus grant. If we remove that, we shall put in danger the whole of the bus industry and its export earning capacity. I ask the Government not to phase it out but to keep it.
Both the vehicles to which I have referred are excellent. I have driven them fully laden at 50 m.p.h on test tracks without using brakes and using merely the retarder switches They are very advanced.
We are in the process of developing exciting new techniques. British Leyland has just formed a new technological company to develop vehicles for the future. Lucas has its one-ton hybrid, electro-battery vehicle well in development stage, with prototypes on the road. We are trying, based in the Midlands on Metro-Cammell—I have lent my initiative to this—to put together a consortium to build a tri-modal vehicle which will replace the present buses when they run out. It is a vehicle which will move for one-third of its life off fixed overhead electricity input, putting it into a battery layer underneath. It will run off its own energy for two-thirds of its life, the third

form being a pod to take diesel when it is outside its energy range. I am convinced that if we put this vehicle together it would earn billions of pounds for this country. There is only one alternative at present, and it is not within this country.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider a Government initiative to put together great private institutional money to prime the pump for this great enterprise, so that this country will hold the initiative in these matters. Apart from a short length of overhead wire—I think at Rotherham—there is nothing on which that vehicle could run in this country. Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider for the West Midlands—the powerhouse, the iron heart of England, the venture place which puts these creations and initiatives together—the possibility of providing what is needed?
We have in the West Midlands two local maxims: "You have to have wheels" and "Get on your bike". Unless we have the wheels we want, engine motivated, in the form we want, we shall certainly have to get on our bikes. As was said in this very House of Commons not two weeks ago by Mr. George Turnbull—ex-managing director at Long-bridge, ex-creator of motor manufacturing in Korea, and present controller of Talbot—we shall not have another chance.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. John Butcher: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for your indulgence in tolerating this soirée, which may appear to have been organised by the West Midlands Mafia. I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten).
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) in complimenting our hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) on his excellent maiden speech. I have had the privilege of hearing him on previous occasions, and I am sure that the House will enjoy his many contributions in the future.
I hope that the House will understand that because of the lateness of the hour, because there are others more qualified than I to contribute to the debate, my


remarks will be brief. I shall try to confine them to the interests of British Leyland and the Rover-Jaguar-Triumph division in particular as it affects the population and working people of Coventry.
In recent weeks and months we have seen a set of rather daunting figures. Hon. Members are often fond of using the word "crisis". Looking at the figures alone, one sees that the domestic motor vehicle assembly industry is certainly facing a crisis. In the five months to May this year, there was for the first time ever a deficit on the British motor industry trading accounts. We imported more cars and components, by value, than we exported. That is horrific. We have also seen from the figures of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders that in May 56 per cent. of the cars sold on the domestic market were imported.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley indicated, the stakes are very high. In British Leyland alone we have 180,000 workers. I was told by a spokesman yesterday afternoon that about 220,000 workers in the supplier companies depended on British Leyland contracts. In the Coventry context, about one-fifth of the total work force works directly for British Leyland. All of that is in strong contrast with those halcyon days of the past. My hon. Friend used the word "Klondike". Coventry used to be called the Klondike in the late 1950s. Wages, productivity and morale were high. There was a great deal of pride in the products—with their famous names—which the workers manufactured.
We are entitled to ask, what went wrong? It must be said that British Leyland's problems are not entirely of its own making. In the 1960s and 1970s we would all agree that the motor industry was used by successive Chancellors almost as an economic regulator. Chancellors fiddled around with hire-purchase rates and regulations. They upped and reduced taxation almost at will on what they saw as the most status-riddled consumer durable in the market. Demand, to put it mildly, was erratic through this period. This was no context in which the planners and investors could operate efficiently.
In the mid-1960s and until 1972 we saw a period of stagnation. Output was entrenched at about 1é1 million cars. Then,

suddenly came the famous "dash for growth" in 1972. The way my contact in the industry explained it to me this afternoon cannot be repeated in this House, but I can say that the dash for growth caught British Leyland by surprise. From 1é1 million cars in the domestic market there was suddenly a demand for 1é6 million. It was in this environment that the importers first gained that all-important foothold. My goodness, they have built on it since.
Throughout this period we had the famous mergers. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is not present tonight. Perhaps I shall not be thought to be too tendentious if I say that I would have willingly given way to hear the right hon. Gentleman's observations on what happened when he was going through his "big is beautiful" phase. I understand that he is now going through his "small is beautiful" phase. The mergers were messy and disrupted line management. There was also a move towards decentralisation in British Leyland.
The company pushed out tentacles to places such as Merseyside. We all know what happened in Speke. I will not go over that familiar story. I found it rather ironic, when I visited the Canley factory, to see the TR7 once again being built in its natural home after a number of years when the marque had travelled to different homes, years when the company had been unnecessarily weakened. This teaches us that once political decision-making is mixed with economic decision-making the result is an awful mess.
Until Michael Edwardes came along, we were reinforcing failure. That was no way in which to fight an economic battle. The Government are continuing to back BL and, most important, to back Michael Edwardes. More than anything else, Michael Edwardes needs time. I suspect he needs about two years. He also needs support—not cash handouts, not increased public expenditure, not an increase in the role of the National Enterprise Board, but moral and practical support.
The Government and British Leyland believe in fair trade, in equal trade. While BL as a company and we as a country fight fairly, others do not. I notice that


my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford and I have been asking the same written question in the past week, about the Ford Motor Company, in the context of Spain. I suspect that we both received an equally blunt reply. I can tell the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), that the questions were not as naive as they may have at first appeared. There is agreement among many people in the British industry that while we import 30,000 "Trojan horse" Ford Fiestas, there is virtually no reciprocal trading agreement with Spain. To all practical intents and purposes, the Spanish market will not accept BL cars. If it does, it will be in such small numbers that it will not be worth British Leyland setting up a dealership in the first place.
In Japan, to put it mildly, there is obscurantism and bureaucracy. The attitude is "They shall not pass, but we shall not tell anybody why." The Japanese do not break their trading agreements. They are simply terribly cunning and crafty in the way they go about things. To hear BL management talking about what it has to do to get a new model on to the Japanese market is interesting, to say the least.
By contrast, some of our colleagues in Europe have fairly tough controls on Japanese imports. I believe that the Italians have import quotas. The French say that they will allow a 3 per cent. market penetration by one manufacturer but that if there is more they will take unilateral action.
The COMECON countries, I am tempted to say, dump cars on to the British market. Perhaps it is more polite to say that they sell in this country at a cost which is—

Mr. Hal Miller: State-priced.

Mr. Butcher: I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller). They sell in this country at prices which cannot cover their costs when one adds the costs of transportation and distribution.
Some foreign Governments are, like the United Kingdom, bound by international agreements, but they can support

their domestic industries through Government purchasing policies or by nods and winks. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give a few nods and winks to the big public corporations, nationalised industries and Government bodies and, like some of his colleagues in Europe, will get tough with the local authorities and public bodies. I hope that, if it comes to it, he will also get tough with the non-EEC exporters to the British market.
Despite many of the comments which have been made tonight, I believe that there is a great deal of hope for BL and for Rover-Jaguar-Triumph in particular. They are no longer fettered by a restrictive Government pay policy. That is vital to a group of workers who are obsessed with incentives. They talk proudly of the days when they could earn twice as much on an incentive bonus scheme as they got in basic pay. The West Midlanders are materialistic in this respect. Thank goodness they are.
Michael Edwardes can now talk incentives. We have given him some help with our taxation policies. He has his parity scheme almost in operation throughout many of his plants and he is now starting to build bonus schemes on top of that. Michael Edwardes is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry would call an entrepreneur. He reinforces success, and thank goodness that he does.
It is heartening to report that the Land Rover, for example, after an excellent investment policy, is now driving the Japanese out of the continent of Africa. I apologise if that sounds like the language of warfare. "Driving the Japanese out of the continent of Africa" sounds dramatic, but I believe that we are fighting an economic war.
I am pleased to concur with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford regarding joint ventures. The new car, code-named the Bounty, which I am proud to report will be built on a track at the Canley works, will be a tremendous success. Honda is one Japanese company which believes in reciprocity and playing the game. British Leyland management tells me that it foresees an output of 60,000 cars going into the United Kingdom and European market and that Honda will not sell the identical model, produced in Japan, in


those markets. I believe that we have a good economic deal and that it has Michael Edwardes written all over it. In two years he will have the model range that he requires.
should also report that Rover-Jaguar-Triumph is still producing and exporting cars to the value of £450 million per annum.
In my penultimate remarks I should like to draw attention to the experience of Volkswagen in Germany. We all remember that in the late 1960s and early 1970s Volkswagen was in an awful mess. It had a big gap in its range, did not know how to replace the "Beetle" and did not have the money to see through its plans. The company took a Government loan and substantial assistance, and revamped the model range. Just look at it now. I suspect that every hon. Member in the Chamber hopes that we shall see that the pattern has been repeated when we look at British Leyland in two years' time.
I am proud to represent Coventry, South-West and the rather strange, hard-nosed, charming people who work in the motor industry. I value their company and can give them a fair game of dominoes when they want me to.
I had the privilege of touring the night shift at Canley about six weeks ago. I met management and workers whose only concerns were to produce more cars and to work together. In spite of all the past difficulties and the sniping, they are highly motivated people. I hope that the Government will continue down the path on which they have set out and will give those fine people a chance.

1.1 a.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: I am glad to have the opportunity to renew the commitment that I and my colleagues from motoring constituencies have in the success of that great industry and in the workers responsible for the production in that industry, on which so many parts of our country depend.
I should like to repeat the compliments paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn). We heard from him the authentic Tory voice of the West Midlands—the small family business setting out to provide what is needed, not only for the motor industry

but to make our country great again. The House looks forward to hearing further from my hon. Friend.
I mentioned the commitment of my colleagues to the success of the motor industry, and I wish to explore further the commitment of the Government to the success of the industry. In the election campaign, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) made plain that the Conservative Party wanted to see a successful motor industry and to see Britain's only major motor manufacturer thriving. He said that the Conservative Party wanted to see BL succeed and was prepared to back Sir Michael Edwardes, his managers and his work force in their efforts to turn round the company.
There was a significant article in the Sunday Telegraph on 10 July in which Sir Michael set out the three requirements for the continuing success of BL. They were continued support from the Government for the investment programme, a reduction in the work force at Cowley and the adoption of competitive standards of productivity throughout the plants. It has already been demonstrated at Long-bridge that the work force is capable of rising to the challenge and the leadership. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that the Government will be fulfilling their part.
In his statement on the National Enterprise Board, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said:
the NEB will have a continuing role for those companies which have been in difficulties and for which it now has a responsibility, as long as the business concerned has a prospect of viability and no solution based on the private sector is available."—[Official Report, 19th July 1979; Vol. 970, c. 2005.]
In a question to the Department, I asked about the extent of the Government's commitment to the BL corporate plan which was tabled on 30 March. In his reply, the Minister said that there was nothing further to add to the Government statement of 2 April. Therefore, I should like it confirmed that my interpretation of that reply is correct—that the Government accept the conclusions of the NEB, as reported on page 3, paragraph 1.7—that the BL plan warrants continuing support, for the year 1979, as a means of enabling this country to maintain a presence in the world vehicle industry.
My hon. Friends have ranged widely and largely through the motor industry, with particular reference to the manufacture of cars but also—I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) mentioned this—to the manufacture of public service vehicles.
In that report on the BL corporate plan, there were made plain the various problems on the horizon that are facing the motor industry and the need, therefore, to see evidence of substantial improvements in the performance of BL and the motor industry in the current year. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) referred to the fact that in the first five months of this year imports of motor vehicles and components had exceeded our exports for the first time. That is the size of the cloud that has now come up over the horizon. My hon. Friends have referred to employment and skills. This cloud is a threat to which we must give the most serious attention.
Our industry has to compete not merely in a European industry—which is the logic behind the establishment of Ford of Europe and the new creation of Talbot—but in a world industry, because Ford and General Motors have now moved on to the production of the world car. The significance of these developments is that once the design centres move away from this country, this spells a very real threat to the future prosperity of our components industry. The unique feature of the motor industry of this country is the strength of its components industry, which reaches far and wide throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) has experience of this. I have a list of over 100 hon. Members who have motor components plants in their constituencies.
That is the real threat. Once the design capability moves away from this country, it becomes that much more difficult for component makers to sell the original and thereafter the replacement equipment. That is why it may be necessary for component makers to contemplate investment abroad in order to tackle the component aspect of foreign cars at source, and I welcome the relief on exchange controls recently announced by

the Government. That is a necessary development, particularly with the increase in the value of the pound sterling, to which several of my colleagues, most notably my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), have referred this evening.
The cloud that has appeared over the horizon has also darkened our commercial vehicle industry. Imports have substantially increased their penetration, which is a most serious development. In this country we have always been proud of and relied greatly on the strength of our commercial vehicle industry. The Government must pay serious attention to the future well-being of that industry and particularly to the question of heavy lorries.
There is a great deal of public misconception about what a heavy lorry is. People imagine that it will be a larger and noisier lorry, but it will be possible, if the Government introduce the necessary regulations, to load the existing vehicles efficiently, and with the improvements in design that are in train the lorry will not be larger or noisier than the existing fleet. There is a great deal of public misconception that the Government have a responsibility to change. The increased penetration of imports of commercial vehicles has been largely based on the adoption of European standards by competing manufacturers abroad. That has threatened the efforts made by our industry and the support given to it.
It is not sufficiently understood in this country that we have a world lead in the technology for developing electric vehicles—and I am referring especially to the electric commercial vehicle. I point to the success of the "London goes electric" programme, under which the several competing battery manufacturers have co-operated with vehicle assemblers to introduce vehicles to the streets of our larger towns where they have a defined commercial role in the carriage of goods over a limited range, with frequent journeys and frequent stops.
We have demonstrated that we have the capability to produce that vehicle. With the assemblers moving to a new generation of commercial vehicle in the 1-ton to 2-ton range, it will be necessary for the makers of batteries and other equipment to reach agreement with them


concerning the possibility of offering customers an electric vehicle. It is not within the financial capabilities of the companies at present involved to bring down the cost of the electric vehicle to that of the normal internal combustion engined vehicle because of the economies of mass producing the latter. There are further refinements that need to be undertaken in the scale of production.
Therefore, what is needed by one means or another is some form of development contract or launching grant or something similar to what was done in the "London goes electric" programme, when there was, in effect, a subsidy to the consumer so that the capital price was made the same. Of those alternatives, I would prefer the idea of a development contract.
It is essental that in this country we preserve that world lead, even though we should not run away with the idea that these vehicles will be widely on our roads within the next two or three years. I think that the time span is probably about 10 to 20 years, a period, of course, for which the industry based on the internal combustion engine has given clear undertakings to the Government about refining its own technology to reduce fuel consumption. But it is necessary to press forward with this work in view of the prospect that confronts us of a shortage of fossil fuel supplies, and it offers us the hope again of being able to introduce the most advanced technology as the first in the world.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have noted that there have been very few requests from my hon. Friends for the injection of public funds. It has very much to do with the climate in which businesses have to operate—the climate in which firms are able to reach agreements with their work forces, the climate in which the workers can earn the rewards of their work and have the necessary incentive to produce. Indeed, there is nobody from a motor manufacturing constituency who has not had the plea "Can't we get back to piecework so that we can produce something?"
With this change in atmosphere, the Government have offered people hope and now have the opportunity to consolidate. But, apart from the lead given

by the Prime Minister, I commend to my hon. Friend the need for stability in the environment, both legislative and administrative, in which the industry has to operate. I ask that there is adequate consultation and a long enough lead-in period to enable the change necessary to be brought about without undue disturbance.
In that context, I remind the House of the continuing uncertainty regarding the future of the vehicle excise duty and the licensing centre at Swansea. Very few people in the industry can see the reason for changing the system, while accepting that there is an argument for increasing the cost of fuel in order to enforce economies of consumption. But the licensing centre fulfils a vital role for the motor vehicle industry, not just in terms of competitive marketing but, even more importantly in view of public concern, in the possibility of the recall of defective vehicles. It will be necessary for the centre to continue to operate, quite apart from the Government's insistence, no doubt, on wishing to see that cars are still insured and inspected.
There are more than 20 million holders of driving licences, so we are not discussing some minority interest as some of our railway-minded friends might lead us to believe. The public find it difficult to accept that when they still have to send their documents to Swansea annually there will not be a charge for that process, and they do not believe that they will not be conned if there is a change in the present system.
I commend to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the need for stability in the legislative and administrative environment and for the demonstration of a commitment to the success of the British motor industry and of confidence in those engaged in it.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Graham Bright: The vital role that the motor industry plays in our national economy is clear to everyone. It plays a particularly important part in my constituency, where more than 20,000 people are employed in the giant Vauxhall works. The prosperity of Luton and of much of Bedfordshire depends upon the success of the company, and its return to profitability owes much to the skill of its management and to the character and responsibility of the


workers. This is an example to the rest of British industry of what can be done when both sides of an industry work together for a common aim.
Vauxhall's success has been achieved with relatively restricted help from central Government. Since Luton is in the South-East and not the Midlands, industry there does not benefit from regional aid or special assistance to companies of the kind available in intermediate or full development areas. Where this aid has been made available, I believe that the results have been uncertain. The huge sums of taxpayers' money injected into the Chrysler corporation—£46 million in investment loans and £59 million to cover losses to the end of 1978—and the even greater amount, £650 million in equity capital and £150 million in loans over the same period, sunk into British Leyland have led to a distortion in our domestic market.
Leyland has been able to spend vast sums of money without due regard to the harsh realities of financial constraint. such as mounting promotional campaigns to boost its share of the car market. Capital aid on this scale to both Chrysler and Leyland has enabled them to evade the results of their failure to sell their products to the buying public in sufficient quantities.
Vauxhall Motors, which relies on generating investment internally out of profits, has probably suffered by this policy. The income tax paid by Vauxhall workers has been helping to subsidise its competitors, and the logic behind penalising the successful has always escaped me.
There is no good reason why free and fair competition should not exist in the motor car industry. If the public have the chance to choose beween the rival products offered by motor manufacturers at competitive prices, the success or failure of those companies can be measured properly. In its present form, regional policy offers inducements to manufacturers to build factories in areas where they would not otherwise choose to go, and it penalises areas such as Luton where they would settle if they could. This discourages effective investment, and people gain an incentive to be immobile

in their choice of work. Hon. Members should recognise that this penalty adds to the cost of production in the motor industry and is inevitably passed on to the purchaser.
We in the House have the responsibility of deciding where public money shall be spent. Vast sums have been poured into the motor industry by the previous Administration. We face the prospect of continuing demands on the taxpayer for regional aid under sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act. It is our duty to recognise the effects of regional aid and capital investment by the State on the successful private sector of the industry. I do not believe that the successful part of the motor industry should have to face this kind of distortion to the market in the future. I look to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench to take necessary corrective measures.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Les Huckfield: It was interesting to hear the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn). We recognise that he comes to the House in the true tradition of West Midlands small businesses. I am glad that he paid tribute to the role of those businesses in the manufacture of motor car components. As he knows, some 7,000 companies are dependent upon British Leyland, producing components and supplies for that company. The total employment related, directly or indirectly, to British Leyland has been estimated over a period of time at 1 million jobs. A number of those jobs are in the small companies that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
It was also intriguing to hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), who has already left the Chamber. I noted carefully what he said about the motor car industry, particularly the need to preserve bus grants, introduced by the last Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman values the continuity of grants, which many Opposition Members recognise have been valuable in the bus industry as an instrument of public transport policy and as an instrument of bus manufacturing, I hope that he will lose no opportunity of pressing his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
It was interesting for me to hear for the first time in the House the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). I saw him starting to pursue the path towards import controls. I am not sure whether such an approach tallies with the overall philosophy of his party. When he talks about quotas and non-tariff barriers, that is a world familiar to many hon. Members who represent motor car industry constituencies. If he is to continue to advocate in the House some kind of selective import controls, quotas or regulations, I hope that he will be able to make his views prevail in his party.

Mr. Butcher: I was saying that as believers in true, free and fair trade we should look to our Government for the reciprocity that is exercised by other Governments. We would be doing nothing more and nothing less than the Italians and the French. I drew attention to COMECON, which does not compete fairly, and to what we hope is a short-term problem with Spain and particularly with the Japanese. I am not arguing in any way for the breaking of international trading agreements or agreements within the EEC, which I very much support.

Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman has failed to convince me that he was arguing only in favour of non-tariff barriers. I recognise nevertheless that he was arguing persuasively for some pressure to be put on public authorities in their purchasing decisions. I am glad that he did that. I hope that it is a policy he will pursue with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.
The Secretary of State for Industry, when not talking about entrepreneurs as tigers, sometimes talks about the Government as a wise consumer. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not see the Government in quite the same kind of purchasing role as the hon. Gentleman does. It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman go down that path, which has not been favoured by his party recently.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller), who has changed his Bench already—perhaps he is working his passage towards the front—made an interesting speech. We recognise his

knowledge. He has spoken in motor industry debates frequently. I shall have, however, to draw his attention in future to one of his statements that there had been no requests from that side of the House for injections of public funds.
I may have to hold the hon. Gentleman to that. There has been some peculiar voting by the Conservatives on public funds for British Leyland. I shall mark the record carefully and draw the attention of my hon. Friends to the way in which the hon. Gentleman said that.

Mr. Hal Miller: I cannot say that I am particularly concerned at being under the hon. Gentleman's scrutiny. He will recall that I voted for the British Leyland rescue. So I am not weak at the knees at the thought that I shall be under the scrutiny of the hon. Gentleman and any of his right hon. and hon. Friends whose help he may seek in intimidating me.

Mr. Huckfield: I would hardly come here at half-past one in the morning in a spirit of intimidation. I came here simply to listen to what hon. Members would contribute to the furtherance of our knowledge of the motor industry. I found what the hon. Gentleman said, particularly the way in which he said it, very interesting.
It is interesting to hear Conservative Members make those tantalising declarations of faith in British Leyland. We have heard so often that they want British Leyland to continue and survive, that they want a British-owned domestic manufacturer. The only trouble is that on a succession of occasions they have been found wanting when it came to voting the necessary money. I know that the vote of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch has not been as consistent against those public funds as those of some of his hon. Friends, but it is worth pointing out yet again that they say they want British Leyland to survive but are not prepared to vote the money.

Mr. Cadbury: Nonsense.

Mr. Huckfield: I am glad that that is the view of the hon. Member, who has not been here very long. I hope that he will check the speeches of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who has said a number of times that he would have


preferred British Leyland to go into liquidation. We frequently heard that view echoed by Tory Members when they were in Opposition.
The protestations, the declarations and the touching testimony of faith in the survival of British Leyland—particularly the Austin-Morris division—are not quite backed up by the voting for the money to ensure that survival. We shall watch development carefully in view of those touching declarations.
I am glad that hon. Members have recognised that particularly in the West Midlands British Leyland especially provides many jobs. If Oxford is included in the West Midlands area, 104,000 jobs are directly dependent on British Leyland. There are two plants at Cowley and several plants at Coventry and Birmingham. British Leyland is a substantial employer in the West Midlands. Most British Leyland plants are in the West Midlands.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch for trying to extract a declaration of support for British Leyland from the Secretary of State. However, that declaration has not been made in the House. I pressed the Secretary of State for Industry, as did some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to give a declaration of faith in the continuity of the investment programme. The Government have not yet made that declaration. They have said that they want British Leyland to survive. However, the Secretary of State has said that he prefers to stand back and to allow the management and unions to get on with it. That falls short of the declaration that I and my constituents require.
Chrysler has not attracted much attention in the debate. I am sorry about that, because hon. Members who represent constituents who work at the three Chrysler plants are worried about their future. I attended the all-party motor industry group meeting when the future of the Chrysler company was laid before us by Mr. George Turnbull.
There is a feeling that some layers of management do not want Chrysler to survive. I do not endorse that feeling but I must report it. There is a dispute at the Ryton plant and there are difficulties at the Stoke plant. I hope that we

shall receive more news about the future of the Chrysler plant. We have not the news about continuity that many of my hon. Friends would like to hear.
The debate has been about regional and selective aids to the motor industry. That involves industrial development certificates and section 8 and section 7 Industry Act assistance. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Bright), recognised that sections 8 and 7 assistance went to the motor industry under the previous Government. The new Ford plant in South Wales, the Vauxhall plant at Ellesmere Port, and Chrysler plants in other parts of the country have obtained such assistance. It is not just a matter of public money going into British Leyland. It is a matter of money under those sections of the Act going to Ford and General Motors.
There are many fears that merely raising the industrial development certificate ceiling will not ensure that investment is generated in the West Midlands. It is feared that the raising of that ceiling will create a proliferation of investment not in the West Midlands but in the South-East.
When the Secretary of State for Industry wrote in "Manifesto for the Midlands" before the general election about the lifting of limits for industrial development certificates, he got the figures wrong. I shall not go into the details of that tonight. However, there is a fear in the West Midlands that the mere raising of the IDC limit to 50,000 sq. ft. certainly does not guarantee automatically that the investment will flow to the area. It can just as easily flow to the South-East. Since we are a member of the EEC, there are advantages in being near to the markets of the Community.
I hope, therefore, that the House will not conclude, just because we raised the ceiling from 12,500 or 15,000 sq. ft. to 50,000 sq. ft., that that is a shot in the arm for the West Midlands. I do not see it like that.
I welcome this opportunity of having a debate. I hope that we shall learn something from the Minister's reply, because that is why I stayed for the debate. My hon. Friends will want to read that reply. I suspect that one or two more of them might have been here had they


been encouraged to expect that the Minister might be a little more forthcoming than his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been when he has made statements and answered questions on industry policy. If the Minister can be a little more forthcoming, I and my constituents will be glad.
There is concern on this matter. We have not been given the declarations of faith in the continuity of the investment programmes that we have wanted. It is nice to hear the testimonies of faith in the survival of British Leyland. We have heard them before. We want to hear the declaration that the Government's support for the investment programme in British Leyland will continue. We want to be assured that money under sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act will be available.
We also want a response from the Government to the points made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South West about reciprocity in trade between motor industries. Since we are members of the EEC, external action has to be taken on a common front, but that does not deprive us of the opportunity to use non-tariff barriers. Since there are such barriers in other countries, many of us have frequently said that that is a policy which is open to this Government. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

1.43 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): This has been an important debate. The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) for opening the debate.
The debate has been noteworthy for the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn), whom I congratulate on it. His constituency is fortunate in having someone as perceptive and forthright as my hon. Friend. I note that he is the first Conservative Member of Parliament for the constituency. I well understand now why his constituents should have chosen him. He mentioned that he is a branch officer of his trade union. As a former member of the Transport and General Workers Union, perhaps I can say "Welcome, brother."
The points that my hon. Friend made so succinctly about the relationship between profit, investment and the security of jobs certainly find a strong echo in the Government's policies. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, I was especially interested in his remarks about small businesses. He made it clear that it takes more than one generation for many businesses to reach their full potential. How short-sighted we were under the previous Government to tax businesses so that they could not be passed on from one generation to the next. Thus we were beginning to be one-generation behind in our thinking in industrial investment policies.
The debate has included speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Northfield, Oxford (Mr. Patten), Luton, East (Mr. Bright), Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), Dudley, West, and Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller). If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch is the doyen of the West Midlands Members. I remember visiting my hon. Friend's constituency last year and noting the tremendous knowledge and experience that he brings to the problems of the motor industry.
The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield for initiating the debate. First, the debate has recognised the importance of the, motor industry to the nation. It has recognised the importance to small firms of the motor industry as component suppliers and it has recognised the importance of small firms to the motor industry. Most important, it has recognised the responsibility of the industry—men and management—to others. The others to whom it has a responsibility include about 800,000 who are involved in the industry itself and in the component and supply industries, to which a number of my hon. Friends have drawn attention. It also has a substantial responsibility to our balance of payments. It is sad to record the deterioration over recent years, from a £1 billion surplus in 1976 to a deficit for the first time ever in the first quarter of this year of £238 million.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) for staying to take part in the debate. The hon. Gentleman must have been very lonely because there are so few of his colleagues


sufficiently interested in the motor industry to remain for the debate.
I regret that the hon. Gentleman read into the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West a proposition for import controls. I regret that he even ignored my hon. Friend when he drew his attention to the fact that he was misinterpreting his remarks. My hon. Friend referred rightly to the need for reciprocity. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who speaks on the Opposition Front Bench, works on the assumption that the motor industry can survive only if there are endless injections of public money. I cannot go along with that view. It is not a view which will necessarily commend itself to the House.
Our approach to the funding of BL following the admirable Conservative line laid down by the previous Government is to decide whether past and current performance is adequate to justify confidence that an injection of further public money will be a sound investment. The taxpayer would not be content if vast sums were spent on keeping BL alive merely to delay paying for the funeral. However, no decision will be required of the Government for some months. We are watching the company and its efforts with hope and encouragement.
I agree with the hon. Member for Nuneaton that we are discussing an important industry. Total sales amounted to 1·8 million cars, trucks and buses last year. Employment was in the region of 485,000, and the industry accounted for about 8 per cent. of our manufacturing exports.
The industry is uniquely important because it is an assembly industry and there are a multitude of component suppliers who are reliant upon its success. There can be no question but that the Government are anxious to see that the industry is successful, and its activities so far have been designed to help it to be successful.
The Government's policy aim is to create the right framework in which this industry, and, indeed, all our industries, can prosper. That is why we have seen in the Budget changes to restore incentives and to start making it worth while for people at all levels in industry to work to the best of their ability.
I noted the positive response to the Budget from the SMMT. The president of that society has indicated that the incentives in the Budget will encourage men and women at all levels in the industry to produce the extra effort that is needed. I noted particularly that my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield stressed the need for incentives. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West particularly drew attention to the relationship between incentives for management, for workers and for investors. How right he is, for it is in a partnership of those three that we see the very basis for success in running any industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield drew attention to the past damage which had been caused to the Birmingham area and the West Midlands by some aspects of regional policy. I remember vividly sitting here listening to his maiden speech, when he drew attention to the car door which went through four factories on its way to the assembly line. The position of Birmingham and of the West Midlands has become totally anomalous under the regional policy which was being pursued by the previous Government—anomalous because there were within that area higher levels of unemployment than in many areas which had assisted status.
As I know from my own visits to Birmingham, the heartland of the business enterprise of this country can stand on its feet and it can be enormously successful, but to do so it needs to have fair opportunity. The changes that we have made will help to give it that.
During the past five years, more than £1,000 million of taxpayers' money has been committed to this industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford stressed the need for the industry to be able to stand on its own feet and his confidence in its ability to do so. As guardians of the taxpayers' investment, we are deeply concerned with the successful achievement of a viable, re-equipped and competitive industry in the 1980s.
What are the prospects of the industry as we stand here today? I have to say to the hon. Member for Nuneaton, who speaks for the Opposition, that the Government can guarantee nothing as to the prospects of any industry, because it is upon those who manage and work in the industry that the prime responsibility rests. No amount of public investment


can ensure that an industry performs competitively. What we need is continuity of production. We need to achieve European standards of productivity. We need to have energetic management. We need to have good quality. We need a reduction in the immensely damaging number of disputes, many of which are of an unconstitutional nature. In particular, we need to break away from a situation into which we have drifted whereby this month we have seen the motor industry balance of trade—traditionally one of our main areas of strength—move into deficit for the first time.
We can certainly do it. There are no inherent reasons why this country cannot produce motor vehicles at least as competitively as our European neighbours. We have the experience and we have the backing of the components industry, which has many strengths and expertise. I am encouraged by the better levels of performance that BL has achieved, particularly at its assembly plant at Cowley, which is now approaching European levels. In the first six months of 1979, commercial vehicle production has risen by 12 per cent. compared with 1978. My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley, who is an expert in this area, particularly the bus industry, will, I am sure, welcome that.
Central to many of the points that have been made by my hon. Friends is the fundamental difference between us and Labour Members who are not present—that is, the significant change that has been made under this Government which enables management to reward skills, to restore differentials and to make it worth while for skilled people in this industry to bring to the companies for which they work the profit that enables those companies to pay higher and better wages. We should not be seeking to compete internationally on the basis of a low wage economy and low costs through low wages. We should be seeking to compete on the grounds of high skill, high productivity and earning for the businesses the high profits that enable them to pay for the skills that they need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromgrove and Redditch posed a number of penetrating questions, particularly with regard to BL's corporate plan for 1979. The responsibility for that rested with the

previous Administration. They had to make the decisions on that plan, which they did before the House went into recess. It was their decision to accept the NEB recommendation that a further £150 million in equity should be provided this year, and this was announced in the House on 2 April. Some £73·5 million was paid to British Leyland by the NEB in June. The remainder will be paid in October. The Department expects to receive the NEB recommendations on the 1980 corporate plan towards the end of this year. It will look at these recommendations in the light of the company's performance this year and of its future prospects. I think that that is wholly in line with the concept that hon. Members have been expressing during the debate.
Mention has been made of the proposed BL-Honda agreement. This was applauded by my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford and for Coventry, South-West. We shall adopt a sympathetic approach to any advantageous collaborative arrangement with Japanese or other manufacturers.
I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West who referred to the problem of Spain. I have carefully noted the points that he made. It is undoubtedly a point on which one will seek the degree of reciprocity for which he is looking as the European Community is enlarged in line with expectations.
Important and interesting questions were raised in relation to electric vehicles by my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove and Redditch and for Yardley. The Department recognises the importance of research and development in this area. The key matter is the electricity storage, where the weight of the batteries is a problem. We have contracts with Chloride to develop an advanced sodium sulphur battery for which the Department is contributing £1·9 million. It is also contributing more than £2 million to Lucas to help it with work on powering a new electric vehicle. There will be 120, and the work will have application to the Bedford van. The sum of £400,000 is going to the Greater London Council for an experiment in which it is engaged with 62 vans.
It appears that the right progression for the use of electric vehicles will be vans


first, then buses and then on to the private motor vehicle. We are taking a keen interest in the matter. If my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley, who made a special plea for a new initiative, will write to me or see me about it, I shall be happy to discuss it further with him.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West in his tribute to the chairman of British Leyland. Sir Michael Edwardes has our full confidence. I am glad that there is bipartisan agreement in the House about the need to see the success of the British motor industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch invited me to pledge my commitment to the industry's success, and that I do. I look to the industry to achieve what is within its potential, which is certainly to make that success for itself.
I return to the remarkable maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. West, who made clear references to the need for incentives for workers, managers and investors, working together for prosperity and success. That is a theme that I believe we can take not only for the motor industry but for a wider field of our economic life.

PRISONERS (LONG-TERM CUSTODY)

2.2 a.m.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: In turning from the motor industry to matters concerning the Home Office, I wish to draw attention to the problems resulting from long prison sentences. One of the advantages of speaking at 2 o'clock in the morning is that it reduces to a bare minimum the chances of any interruption from the Opposition Benches.
The matter that I raise is of great importance. The concern felt outside the House about the fate of criminals serving long sentences, and perhaps more particularly of their victims, has not been fully expressed in this Chamber. In particular, I regret that during the debate last week when the House decided against capital punishment the feeling of the people was not represented by the vote.
It goes without saying that one of the results of that decision is that the pressures of long prison sentences are a

matter for urgent review. The figures for 1957 compared with those for 1978 speak eloquently in that direction. In 1957, 22 people were sentenced to life imprisonment, and the following year the total number serving such a sentence was 176. Last year 123 people—the highest number ever recorded in this country—were sentenced to life imprisonment, and the total currently serving such sentences is 1,389. To deal with such a problem, a new approach by the Government must be needed, together with new precautions.
I draw the attention of the House to two duties which the Government have when considering sentences of this nature. The first is the need to protect the public from those who have been caught and sentenced for murders committed. I do not believe that the present sentence of life imprisonment reflects a full appreciation of that need. Of the 387 people who have been released since 1969, there is only one person who has served over 20 years and only nine who have served over 15 years. I do not believe that such a sentence properly reflects the need to defend innocent people against those who have been convicted of terrible crimes.
I am particularly concerned about the pressures building up for even earlier release of prisoners than has hitherto been the case. I draw hon. Members' attention to two instances. Lord Longford has been bringing pressure to bear on successive Government for some time, asking for the release of Myra Hindley. I have read the transcripts of the trial of that lady and I would consider it an affront to the law of the land if she were to be released again, to continue the kind of activities in which she indulged before she was caught and sentenced. There were horrific tortures which she carried out on the children she murdered, and they cannot so easily be forgotten. Nor should the consequences of her release be lightly ignored.
I wish to refer also to another case, that of Mr. James Boyle. He was tried three times for capital murder and was convicted on the third occasion. Since his conviction he has been found guilty of several assaults on prison officers. He is currently being held in a special unit at Barlinnie prison. The Friends of the Special Unit, of whom Lord Longford


is one, are attempting to obtain his early release. By some extraordinary method unknown to me, he succeeded in obtaining a three-quarters of an hour interview on BBC television, Scotland, on 24 July, when he had the opportunity of expressing criticism of the management of the prison and the movement of certain personnel, and when he was given more time than the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Shadow Secretary of State have had during the course of the past year.
I cannot allow this debate to pass without mentioning my feeling of horror at the lack of discretion currently being shown by the British Broadcasting Corporation in interviewing men such as James Boyle and that Irish terrorist who was interviewed in connection with the murder of Airey Neave. Although it is not strictly relevant to the debate, such irresponsible reporting cannot for ever be tolerated by this House. Some action must be taken at some time.
The second need arising from the consequence of long-term imprisonment is that of deterrence. Any prison sentence must be sufficient to deter others from killing. I do not believe that the figures I have quoted, dealing with the release in so short a time of those convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, create such a deterrent.
I refer to the murder of the newspaper boy on his rounds in Staffordshire last year, when he went up to a house and surprised a team of burglars. It appears that when he got to the door he recognised one of the people involved in the robbery. Those people took him inside and murdered him in cold blood, using a shotgun. It seems that under current law the series of robberies which they have already committed has laid them open to sentences in excess of any sentence which they would be likely to serve if they were caught now and convicted of murdering that child. I do not believe that the penalties imposed by the law at the moment are adequate to provide that deterrent factor.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is as important to impose sentences that are actually served as it is to impose sentences that are a deterrent to criminals who now

carry and use knives, guns and other weapons but who 10 or 15 years ago did not, and commit crimes short of murder? Because of their practices, many thousands of our fellow citizens are afraid to leave their homes at night. I believe that more fear and terror are caused by the non-murderers than by the relatively few murderers. Should we not consider those problems together?

Sir N. Bonsor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. When I practised at the Bar, at the time when capital punishment was being heavily debated, I used to ask those whom I represented in armed robbery offences whether it would have made any difference to them if capital punishment had been the penalty for murder. Almost without exception they informed me that they would not have gone armed on their forays had that penalty been available to the courts. I appreciate that is not strictly the point of the debate, but if capital punishment cannot be introduced to provide that deterrent, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) that it is important that harsher sentences than are currently available should be provided to the courts.
That brings me to the four points that I want to ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider. The first is that adequate provision should be made from the funds available to the prison service to cater for the growing numbers of those falling into the category of life prisoners and those serving extremely long sentences.
Secondly, I believe that 17 prisons are considered fit for life sentence prisoners, and included in that number are some open prisons—notably Leyhill. I suggest that it is not right to have open prison facilities available to those who have been sentenced for murder.
Thirdly, I ask the Minister to consider altering the law so that it is open to a judge to direct that a life sentence should mean for the rest of natural life and that there should be no review of the sentence after the normal appeal procedure against sentence or conviction. That would act both to protect the public from callous criminals who commit brutal crimes of the kind of which I spoke earlier and to deter others from following that path.
Lastly, I ask that in any case in which a life sentence does not mean for the rest


of natural life it should be open to the judge, as it is now, to recommend that a minimum term be served and that, as with the full life sentence, that sentence should not be open to review. So long as it is open to review, I believe it to be natural human nature for the criminal to believe that he will not have to serve the full term of imprisonment imposed by the judge.
The figures to which I referred and other available statistics show clearly that most convicted murderers are free within 10 or 12 years. I believe that the life of the Staffordshire newspaper boy could have been saved if harsher penalties had been available to the courts. The robbers whom he identified had nothing further to lose by his murder.

Mr. Keith Best: I am obliged to you Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I hope that the absence of hon. Members in the Chamber has not been caused by the danger that I might speak. I noticed the Minister of State's assiduity in rising a moment ago, trying to pre-empt me in my comments. I assure him and the House that I shall be brief.
I share the sentiment of my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) that we should concentrate on the victims, rather than on the perpetrators, of crimes. It is generally held that too little emphasis is given to care and concern for the victim. However, we are discussing what should happen to the offender, and I shall restrict my comments to that aspect.
There can be no doubting the persuasive and sincere manner in which my hon. Friend put his arguments. I know that he holds a deep-seated view that the death penalty would be a deterrent in cases of murder and other violent crimes. Now that that matter is no longer before the House, my hon. Friend holds a deep and sincere view that life sentences should indeed mean life sentences and that that would be a deterrent to criminals.
I listened to our recent long and, at times, highly emotional debate on the restoration of capital punishment as one of the waverers. I had provisionally made up my mind some days earlier, but I had not thought deeply one way or the

other and I listened carefully to all the arguments. One matter that manifested itself to my satisfaction was that nothing of a conclusive evidential nature was put forward to show that the death penalty was a deterrent to murder. That is why I went through the "No" Lobby in the Division.
Excepting my hon. Friend's personal experiences at the Bar, I have heard nothing in this debate to convince me that life sentences would be a deterrent to murder and other violent crimes. I would that the answer were that simple and that we had evidence that they might be a deterrent. It would make decisions in the House much easier, but I believe that that evidence is lacking.
We have to ask why we send persons to prison. I greatly respect the view that the principal reason for sending people to prison for murder and violent crimes must be the protection of the public. Many believe that rehabilitation is a prime function of the criminal penal process, but I take the view that the principal function must be the protection of the public. That is why we incarcerate people.
We in this country also glory in a system of justice which has yet to be bettered, to my satisfaction, by other systems around the world. It is a system which essentially is one of compassion, and one which takes into account the individual factors appertaining to the offender. It is not for this country to have a tariff of penalties which are inflexible and cannot be altered at all, notwithstanding the individual and very differing characteristics of the offenders who come before the courts. It is that element which is an essential part of our penal process—the ability to review from time to time the progress of someone who has committed foul crimes which justly excite the wrath and indignation of any right-thinking person.
I am ad idem with my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich in feeling that sense of wrath and indignation, especially in regard to the principal matters to which he drew the attention of the House. Surely the important thing, however, must be to be able to review those persons in prison to see how their progression is going. If we had an inflexible system under which,


irrespective of the individual characteristics of the offender, he had to spend a determinate time in prison, that would throw our penal system into disrepute, because it would no longer take account of the individual characteristics of the offender.
It is a commonly held view that if a person is incarcerated for more than about 10 years, especially in rapidly changing times, it is a very difficult, it not impossible, for him to come back into society and lead a useful life. I do not wish to pitch the matter too highly. It is a contentious point, which is open to a great deal of debate. However, I suspect that there is some veracity in that view. In a world of increasingly changing dimensions, if one accepts that at some stage a prisoner must be released, there is a great deal to be said for the view that there is a danger that if he is incarcerated for too long he will find himself in an impossible position.
My hon. Friend has had experience at the Bar. I am still having that experience. He will have seen, as I presently see, the tragedy of those who are released from prison after long periods of incarceration and whose sole desire is to go back into prison because that is the only life which they have come to understand and they find it impossible to exist outside the prison system. That may well be a comment upon the failure of the resources within the prison system to accommodate people more for the life that they will meet outside. I say nothing about that this morning. Whether or not it be true, the fact remains that that is a danger of long periods of incarceration.
If we were to have a system under which people were imprisoned for life and that meant for life, we should throw the penal system into disrepute, because undoubtedly some of those people, however horrific the crime, at some stage later in their lives would otherwise be able to come back into society and make a positive contribution to the benefit of society, if only, perhaps, in atonement for the wrong that they had done.
In addition to that, however, I am greatly concerned with the concept of long periods of incarceration making it very difficult for people to rehabilitate themselves into society again. I hope

that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich will bear in mind the fact that decisions to release persons who are sentenced to life imprisonment are not taken lightly. These decisions are taken after deep consultation with all concerned and after deep deliberation. Only then is a decision made, and that is the sensible way to approach the matter. Once again that proves beyond doubt that we have a penal system which, after a comprehensive review, still has reposing in its breast a degree of compassion that enables us to say that after a certain period a person may well be capable of leading a useful life outside in society.
There are other arguments, but they may seem trite, and for that reason I have not advanced them this morning. There are considerations such as the overcrowding of the prison population and the cost of keeping a person in prison, but they might cheapen the argument and are minor points. The gravamen of my argument is that we should take into account the individual characteristics of the offender and that the system should not change.

2.26 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): I greatly welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) has chosen this topic for debate. In the wake of the decision that the House took last week, it is right that the question of the treatment and handling of persons sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, particularly those sentenced to life imprisonment, should be examined in the House, and I welcome the opportunity to express a view.
My hon. Friends the Members for Nantwich and for Anglesey (Mr. Best) both mentioned consideration of the victim. I believe that the whole House would agree that it is important to pay greater attention to the victim than perhaps has been done in the past. I draw to the attention of the House the measures announced by the Government earlier this week that will generally assist the victim. I have in mind the extension of the criminal injury compensation scheme and the change in policy in relation to compensation with regard to young offenders.
The debate has been mainly concerned with the treatment of those offenders sentenced to life imprisonment. In short compass in my hon. Friends' speeches we have seen the competing considerations that rightly apply when considering how to handle such cases. I hope that I shall not be accused of seeking to please in saying that both my hon. Friends are right in selecting the factors which they suggest are relevant. The difficult question is the balance that should be drawn between those factors, and that is the task of the Home Secretary of the day.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich that the prime duty of those concerned with handling life prisoners must be to protect the public to the maximum possible extent. I also agree that in considering the treatment of such offenders it is vital to bear in mind the deterrent effect. We must take into account the fact that if sentences for the gravest offences are known, or thought to be, too short, the deterrent effect will not be as adequate as the public are entitled to expect. I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey that we do not know precisely the deterrent effect of long prison sentences any more than we really know the deterrent effect of the death penalty, although everyone has his own subjective view on these matters.
The third factor that was prayed in aid by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey is that our penal system as a whole should have as its prime consideration the need to protect the public and that a major consideration should be the deterrent effect of any penalties imposed, but that at the same time it should be a system which considers the individual and relates to the individual, both at the time of sentence and as time passes after sentence. That is the balance that has to be drawn.
Before analysing in slightly greater detail the way in which that balance is drawn at the moment, I want to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich about pressures building up for earlier release. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not deal with the particular cases that he mentioned, especially as one of them relates to Scotland—a dangerous territory for even a former devolution spokesman to

intrude upon. I hope that he will forgive me also if I do not comment on the actions of the BBC. They have been commented upon, in the case of at least one of the matters to which he referred, both by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and anything that I added would be as nothing compared with those authoritative comments.
In the context of pressures building up for early release, I know that I am speaking for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in saying that he certainly has no intention of succumbing to pressures of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend and will continue to exercise his independent judgment in an attempt to balance the factors I have referred to and not in response to any kind of campaign that exists or may build up in the future.
My hon. Friend asked for two points to be considered. The first is adequate provision by the prison system in catering for the number of life prisoners that we have. The pressure on the prison system is great, but, at the same time, the special needs of life prisoners are recognised, and will continue to be recognised, both by the form of prison accommodation available and in the ratio of prison officers to prisoners in the handling of life prisoners.
The number of prisons regarded as appropriate for life prisoners is 22. I welcome the opportunity of making that clear. Under the provisions of section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 the Home Secretary may order the release of a life prisoner only if he is recommended to do so by the Parole Board and after consulting the Lord Chief Justice and, if he is available, the trial judge.
When a prisoner's release is being considered, the views of the judiciary are always put to the Parole Board with a full report on the prisoner's offence, his history before committing it, his behaviour in prison, and all other relevant factors. Whenever a case is considered by the Parole Board, one of the High Court judges among its members always takes part. If the Parole Board does not recommend a prisoner's release, the Home Secretary simply has no power to release him, and it is very rare for him to do so against the advice of the


Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge. He is not, however, bound to accept a recommendation for release and has on occasion felt unable to do so. Similarly, he is not bound by the views of the judiciary.
Under section 1 (2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, the court in sentencing any person convicted of murder may recommend a minimum period for which that person should be detained before he is released. Such a recommendation is not binding on the Home Secretary, but clearly it will carry considerable weight whenever the question of release is being considered.
Turning to the matter relating to this raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich, although the power of recommendation exists, the judges make very little use of it, presumably because they do not wish to do so. Since the provision came into force, 1,205 persons have been convicted of murder in England and Wales, but only 99 minimum recommendations have been made for periods ranging from 10 to 35 years. In those circumstances, when the judges know that they are making a recommendation, and a recommendation only, and therefore need be inhibited in no way by any anxiety about such a recommendation becoming inappropriate as time goes on, so very few are made that one is bound to have reservations about extending the present system of recommendations.
In describing the system applied in considering the release of prisoners who are sentenced to life imprisonment, I hope that the House will share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey that release takes place only after the most careful and anxious consideration not just by the Home Secretary but by a whole range of people well qualified to do so, although in the last resort the release can take place only with the Home Secretary's approval and, indeed, direction.
In this connection, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey did less than justice to my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich, although I know that he is well capable of looking after himself. In all fairness, he did not say that in all cases "life" should mean life. He

suggested that the judge should have the power to make a direction to that effect. But even if that is the case—and even in the view of my hon. Friend there are cases in which life prisoners ought to be released—it is a little difficult to say if that is accepted, as he accepts it, that there should be no use of open prisons for life prisoners.
If we are envisaging the release of a life prisoner, even after a long period of time—especially after a long period—that is a process which must be embarked upon with considerable care if it is not to lead to the dire consequences which we are all determined to avoid if remotely possible. Plainly, the transition from imprisonment in conditions of full security to the world at large is a sharp and brutal one, and the chances of such a transition abeing successful are small. If life prisoners are to be released at all, even with the most careful safeguards and after substantial periods of imprisonment, the chances of success are much greater in most cases if they serve a period in an open prison and possibly afterwards on the pre-release employment scheme in hostels, and so on.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I should like to make it clear that I was referring only in that part of my speech to those who were serving full life sentences. I was not attempting to imply that those who were to be released should not go through a period of rehabilitation.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to give my hon. Friend the opportunity to clarify that point. I am not surprised to hear what he says. There is no disagreement between us. On the whole, with rare exceptions, life prisoners are not put into open prisons unless that is to be regarded as some mark of a move towards a situation in which release can be considered, although it is in no sense a guarantee of release.
When one talks about the release of life prisoners, one must remember that a life sentence prisoner is released on a licence which remains in force for the remainder of his life and can be revoked at any time if his conduct gives cause for concern. If it does, he is recalled to prison to continue his life sentence and his release again is subject to the same conditions and procedures as the initial


release of a life sentence prisoner. In the period from 1969 to 1978, 68 life licensees were recalled to prison. Even since I have come to the Home Office I have had to give anxious consideration to the recall of life prisoners. At present 31 recalled life prisoners are detained in prison, and have been so detained for periods ranging between six weeks and 24 years.
Each life sentence case is considered on its merits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey would wish. One takes into account the nature of the offence, the man's response in prison, the degree of risk to the public and the arrangements that can be made for him after he is released. The overriding consideration, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich would wish, is the degree of risk, since the protection of the public, in all respects, is one of the Home Secretary's primary responsibilities. It is impossible ever to be absolutely sure that there will be no future risk, but a decision to recommend the release of a life sentence prisoner is not taken lightly by the Parole Board and no Home Secretary would release such a prisoner unless he was as satisfied as it is reasonably possible to be that the degree of risk was minimal. That is the policy which my right hon. Friend will be following.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich, as I said at the outset, has done a great service to the House and the public. In the wake of last week's debate he has given the Government the opportunity to restate their policy in this area and to make clear that any suggestion that life imprisonment is some sort of soft option, gradually whittling away, is mistaken. As the period since the abolition of the death penalty has increased, the average period served by a life prisoner in prison has tended also to increase. The paramount need to protect the public will continue to be the major consideration in the handling of cases of this kind.

ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES

2.44 a.m.

Mr. Peter Snape: My purpose in raising this topic is to discuss the policy of the Home Office towards speeding motorists and the devices used to detect them. I hold no brief for a motorist convicted of speeding—excessive speed plays a major part in many accidents—but motorists. Parliament and the Home Office have a right to be sure that the evidence of these devices is accurate whenever a conviction is achieved.
In 17 years of motoring I have never been convicted of speeding by the use of one of these devices. I should hate the Minister to feel that I had a personal axe to grind.
My concern is shared by various organisations. The Automobile Association, for example, wrote to me some weeks ago, and it has written in the past to the present Home Secretary and to his predecessor. The Home Office view is that the use of these devices is a matter for individual chief constables. Although one might think that radar speed devices were one of the problems of modern living, in fact they have been around for almost a quarter of a century. The first—known as PETA—was introduced, I think in Northern Ireland, in 1956, and came on to the mainland of the United Kingdom shortly afterwards. It was designed, built and tested to Home Office specifications, and over the years many thousands of motorists have had cause to rue its accuracy. In the last year for which figures are available, 15,000 motorists in the Greater London Council area alone were fined for speeding after being detected by PETA.
There is one important difference between the first of these devices and those in use today. The Home Office itself will provide expert evidence if PETA is challenged, but it is now virtually obsolete and many police forces are phasing it out. Its successors do not have the Home Office stamp of approval. Chief constables are free to order any type—two or three appear popular—but there is no Home Office evidence about their accuracy.
If a motorist charged with speeding challenges the accuracy of these latest devices, normally a representative of the


manufacturer gives evidence. That basic difference should concern us all. It certainly concerns the AA. The "Monitor" column of the March-April issue of "Drive", the association's magazine, contains a detailed critique of the way in which the Home Office appears to have bowed out of any responsibility for the introduction, testing and evidence regarding the accuracy of these devices.
The magazine says that the director-general of the association, Mr. O. F. Lambert, wrote recently to the Home Secretary to say:
The Association has no brief for the lawbreaker, nor does it wish to make the enforcement of road traffic laws more difficult for the police … but we do view with considerable concern recent developments in speed detection and the apparent lack of central control of the adoption of sophisticated devices".
He went on to stress that the AA believed
that the way in which such devices may be offered to and adopted by individual police forces for the provision of evidence of speed-limit offences may not be in the overall public interest.
As a result of that article and correspondence with the AA, I tabled some questions to the Home Secretary. I did not receive much enlightenment about the change of policy on the provision of expert evidence in the event of a motorist challenging the accuracy of a device.
I was asked to appear on a television programme produced by ATV, a Midlands company. I did not see the completed programme. The interviews were filmed separately and ATV provided me with a transcript. Many of the criticisms made in "Drive" were repeated by representatives of the AA and others. Following the showing of a short film on the devices, Mr. Douglas Houston, the head of engineering research at the AA, said:
We are worried, and our own tests show, that vehicles will show a reading on this device"—
that is, the new type of speed detection device—
that don't even appear on the line of sight of the device. We are also worried about one of them which tended to throw up spurious signals due to audio interference. One instance we were using it in a car, not pointing it at anything, and it was throwing up a signal merely by switching on the car heater blower. To our mind, things like that ought to be investigated by some independent body.

Those comments must cause anxiety to anybody who drives a car. If a motorist drives along listening to Capital Radio or Radio One, will he inadvertently cause a wrong reading on a device at the roadside? If that motorist has the heater blower on at the same time, will there be an even more inaccurate reading?
Some police forces may be worried about the accuracy of some of the devices. In the programme to which I referred earlier Mr. Houston said:
Now I think most police forces are worried that they certainly will take any tuition that is given to them—but that the tuition is basically given by the people who are selling the devices. And certainly these people are not going to draw their attention to any possible limitation or problems.
Chief constables order these devices because of representations from super-salesmen in this competitive industry who are anxious to sell devices to as many police forces as possible. All the new devices are fairly expensive, though the latest one is not as expensive as its predecessors. The earlier devices cost about £3,000 and the later ones cost about £800. May we be assured that chief constables will not be tempted to sacrifice accuracy for cheapness? If cut-price devices do not make the AA confident, should the average motorist be confident of them?
One of the people appearing on the ATV programme was Mr. Tony Sedgwick, who is the general manager of a firm known as Muniquip, whose speed detection device is in common use throughout the country. He said:
What I would like to see personally is an industry standard supported by the Home Office where we all get together with the AA and the RAC and the police and the manufacturers and say what do we need to make a reliable set. And we as manufacturers would support that move.
But it is a move that the Home Office shows no signs of initiating. Will the Minister tell us whether his Department has a view about the long-term accuracy of these machines, bearing in mind that they may be subjected to fairly rough handling?
One can imagine a situation in which a police officer on traffic duty would be measuring the speed of passing vehicles and would perhaps receive an emergency call on his radio. In his hurry to proceed to the emergency, he might throw one of these devices on the back seat of


the car and drive off at a fairly high speed. May we have an assurance that that sort of treatment would not affect the long-term accuracy of these devices? The manufacturers will not give that assurance. The Home Office appears not to want to have anything to do with licensing the supply or checking the accuracy of these devices. It appears that once they are bought it is for chief constables to decide whether an individual piece of equipment is accurate, should be checked and should be tested. That should concern the Minister.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I take it that the hon. Member not restricting his remarks to the radar gun, as it is known. In South Yorkshire radar guns are on trial. They present some problems. Policemen have been known to pop out from behind trees and alarm motorists. The devices cause consternation about whether they are accurate.

Mr. Snape: I think that occasionally when policemen have popped out from behind trees and pointed radar guns at motorists, the motorists have wondered whether their last moments on earth had arrived and whether the devices were something more lethal than a radar gun. That is certainly a problem. Manufacturers have been anxious to design these devices to look as unlike a gun as possible. However, if they are to be hand held and operated, the best that the manufacturers can suggest is that they be shaped like a hair dryer. Any motorist travelling fairly fast would be unlikely to tell the difference between a gun and a hair dryer.
There are various types of these devices. I have referred to Muniquip, which is now either in use or being used in training with 22 police forces. Its main rival, the Kustom HR4, or the slightly more sophisticated HR8 version, is now in use or being used in training with eight police forces. It is apparent that these devices are in use throughout the country. In my area of the West Midlands they will come into use with a fanfare of publicity in September or October. The publicity is designed to deter the speeding motorist, and we all welcome that.
With the use or these devices, thousands of convictions will no doubt result. Many of them will be eminently justified, but they will have been achieved by devices which have been marketed or manufactured by private makers with no official sanction, approval or check from the Home Office.
Will the Minister answer a few points—if not tonight, in due course? Does the Home Office license these machines under the wireless and telegraphy Acts. Surely they are liable to be licensed under those Acts because of the very nature of the devices.
Does the hon. and learned Grentleman agree that it is a slight contradiction that over 25 years ago the Home Office initiated, approved, designed and specified PETA, the first of these devices, yet appears to have taken a dispassionate role ever since and decided that it is for others to design and specify PETA's successors?
Will the Minister consider calling a conference of manufacturers, the motoring organisations and representatives of police forces, as suggested by the manufacturers? Does he think that it is right that the only measurement of accuracy is provided by the manufacturers of the devices? Who advises chief constables on the type of device that should be purchased or is most suitable for the area under their control? Will the Minister consider attempting to persuade his right hon. Friend not to shrug off the problem as being a minor one? It is certainly not a minor matter. It causes concern to many.
I have no brief for the speeder. However, where endorsements are involved, with the loss of driving licences leading to losses of livelihood, there should be no doubt in the motorist's mind about the accuracy of the device that leads to his conviction. The feeling that there may be inaccuracy is caused by the desire of the Home Office not to become involved in the design, manufacture and testing of the devices. I suggest that that should be changed as soon as possible.

3.2 a.m.

Hhe Miniser of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is right to stress the importance


of the law on speed limits and the understandable concern that motorists—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. I think that the Minister has spoken in an earlier debate prior to my taking the Chair. I take it that he is speaking with the leave of the House.

Mr. Brittan: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, motorists have every reason to be concerned about the operation of speed limit law, and the House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue.
During their long enforcement of speed limits, the police have always been anxious to make the fullest use of technological advances in new devices and techniques. In modern traffic conditions it is no longer practical to follow a speeding vehicle for a reasonable distance while checking its speed on an accurately calibrated speedometer. Many years ago the stopwatch was superseded by the radar speed meter.
The first radar meter, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was known as PETA, the portable electronic traffic analyser. It was designed with Home Office assistance and was rented by the Home Office to police forces. Unfortunately PETA is now reaching the end of its useful life. A working party of the Association of Chief Police Officers was set up three years ago to consider its replacement. When that happened, the Home Office informed the association that it was prepared to continue to supply and support one roadside radar device in succession to PETA. After evaluating the many devices that are now available, including the hand-held devices, the working party recommended that forces should in future be equipped with a wider range of devices than hitherto.
The statutory duty to provide operational equipment for the police, including speed measuring devices of this sort, rests with police authorities. The use of such equipment is within the operational responsibility of the chief constable concerned. Home Office approval is not required. The system that operated originally, with the Home Office providing, in effect, the equipment, was one that happened to exist for a substantial time, but many pieces of equipment are chosen

by the police authorities in consultation with the chief constable. The idea that every piece of equipment of this kind that is to he used by the police forces must be provided by the Home Office is not warranted.
What has happened is that many forces have opted for a hand-held radar device to supplement their existing non-radar device, VASCAR, the visual average speed calculator and recorder, and it now seems that there will be insufficient demand for a single standard roadside radar device to warrant the Home Office purchasing and renting it. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right in saying that as PETA goes out of service the Home Office is unlikely to be involved in the evaluation, supply and maintenance of speed measuring equipment.
The hon. Gentleman referred to doubts about the accuracy of the devices which have come on to the market. It might be appropriate to mention here that the function of any speed detecting device, be it a stopwatch, speedometer or radar meter, is solely to provide corroborative evidence of the opinion already formed by a police officer that a vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. Neither the device by itself nor the unsupported opinion of the police officer is sufficient to secure a conviction.
The Home Office has not formally evaluated the new hand-held radar device, as it is not proposed that the Home Office should purchase and rent it to forces. None the less, I can say that the doubts expressed by the Automobile Association and by others have not been substantiated. I understand that the Automobile Association has had a handheld radar device subjected to extensive technical tests and evaluations over a long period of time and has not, as far as I am aware, been able to fault the equipment that it has tested.
The new devices are used only by specially trained police officers, and it has been the practice of most forces, before introducing these devices, to demonstrate their use to magistrates and other interested parties. But, that having been said, it is entirely for the courts to decide whether the evidence from these devices is acceptable, and the onus is on the prosecution to establish that the offence of speeding has been committed. To


the extent that corroboration is needed and that reliance on this sort of device provides that corroboration, the onus rests on the prosecution to satisfy the court that that is proper corroboration.
Any doubt that can be cast on the accuracy of the device is likely to cast doubt on the corroboration and therefore make it difficult, if not impossible, to secure a conviction. Any defendant, whether as an individual or whether backed by the AA, who is able not to disprove the accuracy of a device but is able to cast doubts on its credibility, is in a position to prevent a conviction from being secured. I understand that the courts have dealt with many cases of speeding detected by using the new devices, which are by now quite well accepted.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the use of expert evidence by the manufacturers of the devices. It is open to the prosecution to bring such evidence, but there is no magic in it, and it does not have to be accepted by the courts if it can be challenged effectively. By the same token, short of some special statutory provision, if the Home Office were in some sense to express its approval of the device, that would not render it immune from challenge. It would be up to anyone who is able to produce reasons for doubting the evidence brought forward by the manufacturers about the accuracy of the device to challenge that evidence, whatever the Home Office or anyone else might say about it.
I am not aware of any effective challenge so far to the devices to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Therefore, I believe that the Home Office is justified in taking the view that as it was not acceptable to chief constables for a single substitute to be provided, it is up to them, as responsible officers, to choose the equipment that is available on the market and for it to be used, subject to any challenge in the courts as to its accuracy. In these circumstances, that seems to be a reasonable procedure.
I am sure that chief constables will have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said and will have borne his points in mind in considering these matters. The only other thing that I would say is that if at some future time it becomes apparent that the range of devices that is

currently available has been effectively and properly challenged and found wanting, and if as a result there was not available within this country a set of devices that could be relied upon by police forces, and which they could choose for themselves, a different situation would arise. If that came about, I would draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am sure that one would want to consider what action was necessary, whether of the kind envisaged by my right hon. Friend in the form of consultation or any other appropriate action. But I must stress that at the moment there has not been evidence of effective challenges of the kind to which I have just referred.
In the present circumstances, in the absence of such effective challenge, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the Home Office is justified in leaving the technical matter to people who are well qualified to exercise responsible choice. One can do so the more confidently in the knowledge that one is not dependent solely on the say-so of chief constables and their personal choice but also on the fact that they must make good the validity of that choice before the courts. If responsible motoring organisations such as the AA have a basis for challenging any particular device, they have both the financial resources, in supporting motorists who are prosecuted for speeding, and the opportunity, because of the nature of the evidence that happens to be put before the court, to make good any such challenge.

HOLIDAY FLIGHTS (DELAYS)

3.13 a.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I want to raise the question of delays to holiday flights, including charter flights, particularly from northern airports. I want to raise in the Estimates expenditure on the Civil Aviation Authority and, through it, Euro-control, the EEC, the Council of Europe, the Western European Union and even, perhaps, NATO.
I want to review some of the reasons for these delays and to discuss what politicians and Governments can do to eliminate or reduce some of the causes of all flight delays. By way of introduction, I welcome the fact that the procedure of the House is to be changed. I hope that


a sub-committee made up of representatives of the new Select Committees concerned with trade, transport and the European Community will look very closely at the international implications of air traffic control. This is the key to improving the efficiency, time-keeping and safety of flying and easing the plight of holiday-makers, let alone schedules airline passengers, particularly during June, July, August and even September.
The business traveller is no less concerned than the holidaymaker about the expertise and complexity of the technology that enables a scheduled or charter flight to go through congested air space, involving many national air traffic control systems, efficiently and reasonably punctually. One can follow the dictum "Out of sight, out of mind". It is only when a flight is delayed, for whatever reason, that the business traveller and the holidaymaker begin to question what goes on behind the scenes to make the journey possible. I hope that the debate will give those who travel an insight into what has been built up to make commercial flying possible.
I have tried to raise this issue in the House on a number of occasions. If I had been lucky enough to be able to move a Private Member's motion, I should have preferred the whole problem to be examined in a half-day debate than to keep my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade up at this hour of the night. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend, who has responsibility for these matters, is to reply. I do so because of his expertise as an ex-airline pilot and his work as chairman of the Conservatives' aviation committee in the House. I know that he has a deep understanding of the problems that I am raising and the international implications which go well beyond his desk.
My hon. Friend's predecessor, the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), gained considerable experience in his office of the operation of Euro-control and the need to look at air traffic control as an international, rather than a national, issue. I had considerable correspondence and meetings with the hon. Gentleman, but I never regarded him as a strong European, although it would be unfair to accuse him of being a little Englander, particularly in this matter.
I hope that my hon. Friend will seek out the facts now that he is in office, that he will make his own judgment, and not be too dependent upon the officials in his Department. This debate will give him the opportunity to acquaint himself with what has happened during the previous Government's period in office, and give him a chance to do his homework during the recess, so that he can take suitable action to remove some of the complaints of holidaymakers who have been subject to delays.
It seems that already the holidaymaker departing from Manchester and other North of England airports, on charter flights in particular, is being exposed to considerable inconvenience. There have been recent press reports of passengers being moved from Manchester to Liverpool. That could happen in bad weather conditions as well.
I have been in touch with the air traffic controllers at West Drayton and Prestwick. I gather that at weekends now the normal delays to flights from Spain and elsewhere in the Mediterranean are at the most two to four hours. But I have heard of holidaymakers spending half a day or six to eight hours and even 10 hours at those airports.
From the North of England, particularly from Manchester, flights to Spain, for example, are routed by Devon, Brest and Bordeaux. On the other hand, some of the restrictions that have been affecting the Paris air controllers are not now too severe. But there are the Barcelona restrictions—two flights every 20 minutes, six per hour, between 4 a.m. and 9 p.m.
This affects journeys to many destinations, including Barcelona, Palma and Ibiza. Today, travel agents have developed rebate schemes and compensation in connection with hotel accommodation. It could be that the public now accept that these delays are inevitable at this time of the year—this time being at the mercy of the French and Spanish controllers. Perhaps the position this year is not as bad as it has been in the previous two years, despite the increase in tourist traffic.
Hon. Members may ask why flight delays should be a political issue at all and may say that this matter should be the sole concern of civil aviation authorities and the airlines. The aeroplane is


an example of a highly sophisticated advanced technology, developed in this century It is only 70 years ago this year that Blériot crossed the Channel. A flight involves flight planning, traffic flow management and all the sophisticated technologies of communications and radar.
Flight today is international. The jet airliner flies at 10 miles a minute. The supersonic aircraft flies at 20 to 25 miles a minute. The unified air traffic systems which serve the United States cover seaboard to seaboard flight times of four to five hours. In the Soviet Union, if I am right, Leningrad to Vladivostok is eight to 10 hours. A modern jet aircraft crosses the Channel in about two minutes, it covers small countries such as Holland and Belgium in 10 to 15 minutes. Flight over European air space covers 26 countries. Each country tends, because of its history, to regard its own air space as sovereign and the control of air traffic a national responsibility. Each country has its own Minister and Ministry of Defence, its own Civil Aviation Authority or equivalent, and each country has its own Minister with responsibility for civil aviation. I warn my hon. Friend that functionaries like to have command over their own domain, including the national air space.
A flight from Stockholm to Ibiza, for instance, has to obtain clearance from five or six different air traffic control authorities. The forces of nationalism in Europe impose immense restrictions upon smooth air traffic flow. They can be overcome; they are being overcome. Surely the problems of the fare-paying passenger over European air space demand international co-operation and cry out for a European solution, rather than a series of national solutions and, when things go wrong, national inquests.
It is in this area of technology that a good case for European co-operation and co-ordination can best be made. I have been concerned with this problem for a number of years and I seek the indulgence of hon Members while I tabulate how I have been concerned with meetings and discussions in this sphere.
In the early 1970s, as chairman of the Conservative transport committee, I became involved in the pattern of airline

services as part of a transport pattern not only of Britain but over Europe. Subsequently, I was able to attend a colloquy on aviation in 1973 in Paris, organised by Count Pierre de Montesquioa, who was president of the Science and Technology Committee of Western European Union. At that meeting those with different interests gained a much better understanding of the role that each had to play. There were Members of Parliament from all over Europe, heads of airports, members of the International Civil Airports Association, the civil aviation authorities, and representatives of aircraft manufacturers and of the electronics and avionics industries. Even if no conclusion was reached, that conference brought about a better understanding among those attending it of the issues involved.
Going a stage further, there was an air collision over Zagreb on 10 September 1976, which took place just before a joint meeting in plenary session of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. This was a collision between a British Airways Trident and a Yugoslav DC9 which had been routed as a charter, with German tourists, from Split to Cologne. At the time it was a matter of concern to hon. Members in the House of Commons and of even more concern to German Members of Parliament in the Bundestag. The report on the causes of the Zagreb air disaster is well known, and it gave rise to an excellent film "Collision Course" which was presented on Independent Television a few months ago.
Arising out of a debate in the European Parliament in October 1976 the Regional Planning, Regional Policy and Transport Committee—I emphasise the transport aspect of its work—the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee and the Energy and Research Committee were given the task of looking into the whole question of air traffic control over Europe. I was able to present the technical opinion for the Energy and Research Committee. A rapporteur, an Italian senator Ne, produced document 49/78, published on 20 April 1978, and that was debated on 9 April last year. We were then at the European Parliament debating an essentially European problem in a European forum.
In the meantime, the Council of Europe had a report on air traffic collision avoidance—document 4028 of 21 September 1977—prepared by another Italian, senator Treu, and there was a subsequent debate in which reference was made to the work being done by the European Parliament.
Last summer, because I was anxious that hon. Members should know of international political thought in this House, I managed, as a member of the parliamentary and scientific steering committee, to arrange for that committee to have a seminar evening meeting on air traffic control, followed by a visit to West Drayton. That enabled hon. Members to see what was going in this country and to acquaint themselves with the complexities of the problem.
Two summers ago there was the British air traffic control assistants' dispute, and that presented immense challenges to the British travel agents and tourist industries. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will reveal the extent to which insurance and compensation schemes are placating travellers at present.
Last summer there was the French air traffic controllers' dispute, in sympathy with the problems facing the Spanish, and that caused delays to holidaymakers. If British holidaymakers were inconvenienced last summer, it appears that German and Scandinavian holidaymakers were even more inconvenienced. That problem gave rise to debates in the Bundestag and to special debates in the European Parliament.
The outcome was that President Columbo of the European Parliament agreed to promote a hearing in Paris, and that was held under the chairmanship of Lord Bruce of Donnington on 19 and 20 March this year. That was a public hearing to promote efficient air traffic management and control. I hope that my hon. Friend has read in detail the substance of that hearing and studied the subsequent report, published on 2 May 1979, just before our election—document 106/79—and debated immediately after the election on 7 May, when I was able to give my views.
I urge that all the work that has been done in the Council of Europe and by

other expert bodies should be made known to Members of this House, as it affects our aviation industry and passengers, and I hope that suitable specialist Select Committees will next year review what has been done in the international sphere.
I am convinced that the directly elected Members of the European Parliament, including those from this country, who must examine the role of the EEC in this area, will realise that air traffic control is an issue crying out for a European solution. I am even more convinced that this conviction is equally strong amongst those from this House who go to the Council of Europe and to the Western European Union. What tends to happen is that each country regards delays as a problem peculiar to its own systems and airline and charter companies. Too many Members of national Parliaments close their eyes to the international implications which are so essential for the solution of the problems of the citizens represented by those Members.
I have also sensed a changing attitude among airlines. I have been impressed over the past three years by the extent to which airlines regard air traffic control as an international problem involving Governments and politicians, not only in regard to European air space but throughout the world. Since I have been concerned with air traffic and the problems facing Britain, particularly the North, I have realised that the problem cannot be left to experts alone. In involves politicians, not only in national Parliaments, but in international forums.
Mr. Hammarskjöld, the president of IATA, wrote to me in September. I apologise for quoting a speech at this late hour, but I should like to refer to what he said at the hearing in Paris. He said then, as he has said repeatedly:
Let me say quite frankly that, at the present time, the air traffic system in Europe is not performing effectively. It is afflicted by an almost continuous, endemic, series of strikes, go-slows, and other impediments initiated by the personnel directly involved. Moreover, even when all the staff are working at normal levels the system is inadequate to deal with traffic demands during the summer. Consequently, during most of the year, airlines operating within and to Europe are suffering serious, expensive delays and disruptions which threaten the economic health not only of the airline industry but also of tourism and trade and, hence, the economy of Europe itself. These issues are of concern not only to European airlines members of IATA but also to the large number of


non-European airlines who operate long-haul services. Europe is the natural hub of long haul services from all over the world: from the Americas, from Africa, and from the Middle and Far East. In past years, economic penalties resulting from inadequacies in the European air traffic system have been severe. Moreover, our members anticipate a problem of crisis proportions in the summer of this year as a result of anticipated industrial problems. … It is the considered view of IATA that the poor performance of the European air traffic system—apart from the problems of industrial unrest—results from its fundamental fragmentation in both overall planning and management.
He pointed out that one airline described the process as being similar to driving down an autobahn until one reaches a national boundary and finding that traffic is then funnelled into a country lane. The situation is further complicated by the large amount of European air space reserved for military use.
There are some obvious facts to be considered. Air traffic control is subject not only to political constraints but to the defence needs of each country. It is too complicated in a debate such as this to outline the extent to which civil flying is confined to narrow corridors between airports and the extent to which air traffic control of the air forces of European countries—military ATC—is separated from, but co-ordinated with, civil ATC.
Safety considerations and defence requirements over European air space are costly and have to be paid for by the fare-paying passenger. Air traffic control accounts for about 10 per cent. of the cost of a flight, while fuel bills vary between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. of that cost.
I have mentioned the Soviet Union and the United States having unified, integrated air space. When I went to the United States I was impressed by the fact that there are 20 identical air traffic control centres, with one co-ordinating centre in Washington. I hope to see again the developments of the last five years when I go to Washington next month.
This year, when Europe mourns the death of Jean Monnet, one of the founders of the concept of a federal Europe, it is appropriate to apply some of his precepts to the problem of air traffic control. He perceived the need for a Europe whose whole would be greater than the sum of its parts, as far back as World

War I. He evolved the method of decision-making by States in full possession of their sovereignty, basing themselves on the advice of expert committees in which national considerations were subordinated to technical ones. Does not this apply to the control and movement of aircraft today?
This century has seen, rightly or wrongly, the growth of political power, whether at local level, county, department, regional or State level, let alone national or European level. That is why I believe that the safe and economic movement of freight and passengers by air involves political considerations and criteria. In this aspect of air traffic control, I accept that technology can adapt itself within the political, diplomatic or administrative parameters, whether these are determined by independent international organisations, of which IATA is an example, or by compromise between national Governments, of which in one area Euro-control is an example, and the European Space Agency is another.
Those two bodies have representatives on their controlling boards from the national Governments who support them but are not really subject to international parliamentary scrutiny, and certainly not by the European Parliament. This is certainly true of Euro-control, if not the European Space Agency, which has been monitored by parliamentarians in the Western European Union. Euro-control is a responsibility of national Governments, national Ministers, and, of course, is not the responsibility of the European Economic Community.
A matter that has impressed me is that IATA and others consider that there is an urgent need to establish a centralised tactical air traffic flow management system in Europe. In a submission at the conference they referred to co-ordination between individual national units with the objective of integration into a centralised system with functional authority. On the other hand, when talking to the French Minister of Transport—I have spoken to the Under-Secretary of State and certainly his predecessor—I have had, as I have from discussions with Euro-control, confirmation that there is a continuing desire to maintain national sovereignty over air space in Europe because, above all other reasons, of a separate defence requirement.
There is a lack of political will in the European sense to achieve technically what has been achieved in the United States of America. I am hopeful that my hon. Friend will have a stronger will and sense than his predecessor, because this Parliament and British Ministers, let alone, for instance, those in other countries—the Bundestag and German Ministers, for instance—without a stronger participation in international activities, are powerless to deal with the complexities and idiosyncrasies of air traffic control and the delays that they impose on our citizens.
There is a need to crystallise and direct this political will to do something about the European scene. I accept that this will must be European and must transcend national Parliaments, but it is important that each national Parliament—and I include the House of Commons—looks much more deeply into the issues than can be done at this hour of the morning. Fare-paying passengers want someone to define what are the logs causing the blockage, so that they can once again flow freely. I have tried to identify national stances and suggested these to the European Parliament. It is only by patient international negotiation that these so-called national stances can be integrated into a more cohesive whole.
Of importance, therefore, is the concept of air traffic flow management and repeating part of what has been seen in the United States of America. Secondly, the EEC has an important role to play, and Commissioner Burke has been involved, but the Commission now can move forward only with caution. Thirdly, in research and development there is the immense momentum of the big companies in America such as Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed. To match that effort in research we need co-ordination at EEC level, and that is where the Community and the Commission have a role to play.
There are defence limitations, particularly over Germany. The EEC excludes defence, and that is in the articles of the Treaty. One can ask whether too much provision is made for defence at present, but I shall not elaborate on that tonight.
I have been impressed by the fact that the civil aviation authorities in Europe,

at the time of the grounding of the DC10, came together in Geneva under ECAC to challenge the veto of the FAA. The Civil Aviation Authority has most competent machinery for ensuring the safety of our aircraft, but at the hearing in Paris I backed the suggestion that there was a good case for a European aviation administration to carry out many of the functions of the FAA over European air space, not only in air traffic control but in integrating the needs of the airlines with the capacity of the industry to meet them. The first step in bringing about an international air traffic control system in Europe that has already been taken could have that ultimate objective, and that step was the convention of 1964 that set up Euro-control.
I have visited Karlsruhe and Maastricht, which are the most advanced units of their type in Europe. By 1984 there will be a new Euro-control convention. If the operation of air traffic is to become a national responsibility—which to a large extent it is already with the exception of Karlsruhe and Maastricht—what role should Euro-control take?
Air traffic flow management is technical and involves radar control of aircraft and pre-flight planning for the year and the month ahead as well as on the day. It is essential that on any one day the limited air traffic corridors are not overcrowded by too many charter flights that would far exceed the capacity of air traffic controllers and equipment. Let us hope that the delays to the vast number of holidaymakers leaving for the Mediterranean sun will not this year be as bad as is feared, or as bad as in the previous two years. There is much that can be done to improve the situation. The Under-Secretary of State invited me to discuss the work that has been done in the EEC and elswhere, and I take this opportunity of raising the debate so that frustrated holidaymakers may realise that there are immense complexities to overcome and that some Members of Parliament are aware of the problems.
I hope that what I have said tonight will illustrate that the solution to many air delay problems requires political will and cries out for a European solution. I hope, too, that the representatives of the House of Commons in the Council of Europe and the Western European Union


will continue to examine the position. I further hope that our new directly elected Members of the European Parliament will consult the appropriate committees of national Parliaments to determine what can be done to overcome some of the difficulties that stand in the way of progress.
The operation and maintenance of air traffic equipment is important. If it represents problems in the United States and over European air space, perhaps because of the desire to exercise sovereignty over national air space, it poses greater challenges elsewhere over the traffic lanes of the world. The problems there are more complex because of the need to maintain and operate sophisticated equipment in areas where expertise and technical training might be lacking. ICAO has a responsibility, and the situation could be monitored by the United Nations. I shall be attending a meeting of the IPU in Caracas in September, and perhaps it would be better for the international implications to be looked at at IPU level first rather than by the United Nations.
I raise this matter because important decisions have to be taken. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has only just taken office, but I would welcome his views on how we in this country, the British Government and the House of Commons, can go forward to eradicate some of the problems that the airlines have to face.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. John Carlisle: I must crave the indulgence of the House if my few remarks bear little relation to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn), but it would seem more prudent to speak now, if only to allow my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to have an earlier breakfast than he would have had otherwise.
We are facing a problem all over Europe of a choking of our airports and tremendous pressure on our existing facilities. The situation has changed considerably since the early 1970s. There have been some dramatic rises in oil prices, which obviously have affected the traffic, there has been a changing pattern of tourism in the last 12 months, with the stronger pound and the decline in the number of tourists from the United States,

but the business traffic in the air seems to be increasing over both the long and the short-haul routes.
One begins to wonder whether there is an economic need for another United Kingdom airport and whether the case is perhaps not being coloured by the fact that such an airport would bring an improvement in our employment situation. But at what cost? It is important to talk about choice of site, about whether the proximity of a site to London is as important as some people are saying, and whether it is really necessary.
We must also ask where all the tourists are going to go now, and whether London itself, which seems at this time of year to be choked with tourists, is proving quite as popular as it was. Indeed, in the assessment of population in this country we are fairly evenly balanced, with the South holding about 17 million residents and the Midlands about 18 million. I wonder how long the South can continue to take the extreme overcrowding that we have experienced over the last few years.
We must ask ourselves what is needed for the country as far as a new airport is concerned. The proposition that has been put forward is that we should build a two-runway airport covering some 5,000 acres. That is not as large as the one envisaged by the Roskill Commission in the early 1970s, but that would mean a town of some 150,000 people and possibly more and a vast complex of roads and railways and massive service facilities.
It would also mean that the noise level would cover an area of at least 25 miles around the airport, causing great distress to a lot of people. We are told that the airport itself would be every bit as big as Heathrow, and would probably grow. I am rather suspicious of the intentions of planners once they have their pencils working on a drawing board. The cost is put at at least £1,000 million but would probably be greater. We are told that if we use a green field site it would take 10 to 12 years to develop, and that if the development was on an existing site it would take at least a further seven years. The people are beginning to ask how costly a new airport would be.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam said, we are experiencing some terrible delays in some of our


flights, and we are suffering from overcapacity at our major airport at Heathrow. In a report published only last week it was said that by 1980 Heathrow would be full. A new terminal has been planned, of course, but this will not help the tremendous road congestion around Heathrow, and it will be no consolation to the residents round the airport to know that a new terminal is planned for the additional passengers that Heathrow is expected to take over the next few years. Conditions are fairly bad there now, and passengers are subject to delay and disruption in the approaches to the airport. I feel that a large number of additional passengers will make the position even worse.
The situation is better at Gatwick where, again, a new terminal is planned. But there is a far greater potential for growth. The noise factor is beginning to become a problem, however, in surrounding counties, and I know that some of my good friends in Kent are complaining already about the amount of traffic that is coming over them, and that, obviously, is intended to increase. Gatwick has the other disadvantage that, being south of London, passengers coming from the north have to travel across London by road or rail, causing further delays to often weary travellers.
Some growth could be made at Stansted, and there is talk of pushing the number of passengers there up to a maximum of 4 million, although I believe that even that would run into very fierce local opposition. At Luton, which is near my constituency, a little more than 3 million passengers are being handled. It is probably the fastest growing airport in the country, used mainly by charter flights for holidaymakers. It is thought that the total capacity could go up to 5 million passengers as an absolute maximum.
When one considers some of the other local airports, such as Birmingham, Manchester, Norwich and even possibly Manston in Kent, one begins to realise that a vast increase in the capacity of those airports on the scale of a third London airport would bring terrible environmental problems to them, as well as problems of access.
It is against that background that protests have begun again. The groups

which were active in 1970 have begun to reactivate themselves and are beginning to raise money by jumble sales, fetes, public meetings and so on. Today I was talking to the chairman of the Wing Airport Resistance Association, who told me that in 1970 its costs were about £70,000 and that it is estimated that it will have to spend £250,000 to mount exactly the same operation. That will take a lot of time, a lot of effort, and a lot of money from a lot of people, and, who knows, it may be completely fruitless at the end of the day.
The opposition to these airports is far more bitter than it was in 1970, and I believe that it will be far more intense. We are all far more conscious of our environment than we were, and far more aware of our heritage. The opponents of environmental change are probably the fastest growing protest party in the land, and the moderate success of the Ecology Party at the last general election gives some hint that people are more concerned about their environment than they used to be. The people in Wing and Yardley Chase and those across in Essex are beginning to feel, as Professor Sir Colin Buchanan put it, like the condemned man who was reprieved but who now, of course, is being condemned again.
It is up to our Government to protect the countryside which we all enjoy. A large international airport would change the whole character of a county. It would result in the building of a new town the size of Sheffield and bring a vast complex of roads and railways which would change the area. Two or three of these areas have been through it before, and I suggest that it is a disgrace that they should have to go through it again.
Current airport developers seem to be no respecters of history. We know that if this large airport came to a green field site some churches would be flattened and even some graves destroyed, which would bring its own human misery. Vast acres of tarmac would take up good farmland which we can ill afford to lose when we still import half of our food. Our agriculture industry is very prosperous. To go on like this would mean that in another 200 years the country would be an entire block of concrete. The threat to life is sad for those who are affected. They cannot plan ahead. Those


who are thinking of schools or an extension to their houses, and those with a business interest in a particular area, are forced to stop while we shilly-shally and wait to make a decision. In places like Wing, Yardley Chase and now at Willingale, England's green and pleasant land would be green and pleasant no longer under 5,000 acres of concrete.
I worry about the effect of action by protest groups if we go ahead with an inland site. It could mean that little old ladies will remain in their houses, with bulldozers all round them. We have only to recall recent experience in Japan. These protest groups are led by some powerful and some very professional men. They include QCs, planners, surveyors and are even well supported by some Members of Parliament. Of course, they are selfish for their own ends. One cannot blame them. But they are also selfish as protectors of the countryside.
The alternative is no airport at all. There would be no delays and, presumably, if all the traffic was sent away, no problem. I should like to suggest a brave new venture, one that is now completely unheard of but one that could be taken up with our EEC partners on the lines described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam.
The site is within easy access of the United Kingdom. It is a major inland international airport where the staff, from the waitresses to the pilots, speak perfect English and where our airport would be welcomed. The venture, I believe, would attract Belgian, French, Dutch and English money. The site is under-utilised and there is plenty of scope for expansion. That site is at Schipol in Amsterdam, which could serve as a truly international airport, with EEC backing. Those of us who avidly support the Common Market must consider it. Such an airport could attract the foreign investment that we need.
A basic advantage is Schipol's keenness that the airport should be sited there. A campaign advertising the airport as London's third airport has recently been concluded. The environmental problems are small—nothing like those that face proposals for a new airport in this country. Air Anglia, an excellent company, is the

third largest airline flying into Schipol, after KLM and NLM, the two domestic airlines. Domestic flights from East Anglian airports have increased by 100 per cent. since last year.
Schipol is operating at 50 per cent. below capacity and could take another 9 million passengers without altering any facilities. A new terminal is planned, which will take another 18 million passengers. Another runway is planned, which would take the figure to 27 million passengers—the number travelling through Heathrow last year. The facilities are excellent, with the largest duty-free shop in the world, excellent conference facilities, family facilities and facilities for VIPs. The airport handles 25 per cent. of transfer fights. There is great potential for handling more. The rail link is new and first-class, and the road links are excellent.
Thirdly, there would be great advantage to United Kingdom airports. We could run from our provincial airports a scheduled shuttle service into Schipol very easily, with easy Customs clearance and great convenience to all travellers. For people throughout the United Kingdom, including those of us in the northern part of the Southern region, an enormous amount of time would be saved by going to this airport rather than struggling through to London.
Another small bonus is that if we began to ferry tourists between Schipol and the regions, it would help tourism in such places as Norwich, the Norfolk Broads, Cambridge and some of the East Coast beauty spots. A small plus, for Schipol, of course, is that it has suffered no industrial action in the last few years.
This could be an exciting development. The Schipol authorities also have an idea for a brand-new airport at Ysselmeer, just north of the present site, on reclaimed land that is more than adequate for our purposes, with room for all the houses and other facilities needed. It has little noise nuisance, few housing problems and easy air connections.
The Dutch Government have held this project on one side. I suggest that we get in touch with them and consider it for the 1990s. Such an airport could be a viable proposition for this country.

4.1 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) has done the House a service in raising this matter, although I would rather he had done so at a more sociable time. However, perhaps this time of morning is a reasonable time to talk about delays.
There is nothing new about air traffic control delays. I recollect that in the early 1960s, while I was flying 707s to New York, I was occasionally asked to slow down on my way across the Atlantic because the New York area air traffic control system could not cope with the demands being made upon it. So we are not suddenly into a problem which has not been experienced before or solved before.
There are few flights, even from northern British airports, which do not experience air traffic control delays. In general, my constituents who face every day the battle to find an uncancelled railway train on the route from Chingford to Liverpool Street would think that the average air traveller received excellent service and rather fewer delays, frustrations and cancellations than they did.
However, I regard the present problems of air traffic control as extremely serious. It is possible that in future it will be air traffic control services, rather than the runways and terminals at our airports and the roads leading to them, which represent the limits to the extent to which the industry can expand. The delays are frustrating and expensive, and this problem affects the whole of Europe. I have noted the concern of various members of the European Assembly with air traffic control problems and I read with interest the record of the part played by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam in the debates and committee hearings in Europe on this matter.
The main problem of congestion of traffic from the United Kingdom and other northern European countries across the centre of Europe to the South arises from the sharp peak of demand when capacity is fully used as everyone wants to go on holiday at the same time of year to the same parts of Europe. The situation has been exacerbated in recent years

by a series of industrial disputes by air traffic controllers and others in many of the countries which are most involved in the routing of traffic.
Britain has experienced fewer such problems than many other countries. Apart from the unhappy dispute involving the air traffic control assistants, we have experienced few industrial disputes which have affected our air traffic control services. I express my thanks to the air traffic controllers, who often work under difficult conditions and are subject to industrial relations problems, not unconnected with outbreaks of incomes policy. I thank them and the travellers for their patience and forbearance. Unfortunately, industrial disruption has been aimed at creating the most havoc at the least expense to those who indulge in it. Outright strike action is not always involved. There have been go-slows, the withdrawal of co-operation and all manner of industrial relations warfare.
I do not condemn out of hand those controllers in Europe who have participated in industrial action. In many cases they have real problems. Some of them have problems about their civilian or military status. Some feel that their equipment undermines their professional standards. Some feel that they are grossly overworked. It is not for me to say how much substance there is in those complaints. However, the controllers feel deeply about these matters.
Our northern airports do not suffer unduly in comparison with airports in the South. There are no major air traffic control problems within the United Kingdom's air space which affect traffic flowing from the Continent towards the northern airports. The problems exist and they will cause trouble in future years. The technical remedies are, in the short term, to improve the rationalisation of demand to keep it within the constraints of supply. That is a heavy-handed way of saying that the airlines must accept that if they schedule aircraft to meet passenger demand in peaks over a few holiday weekends in the summer, as surely as there will be queues for other facilities by holidaymakers, there will be queues for the air traffic control facility.
I hope that we can devise systems that will meet those peaks. I am not sure whether there is an absolute right for


everyone who wishes to travel at a particular weekend to be able to do so, regardless of the costs that that imposes on the system.
On many occasions when we have investigated to find out how the delay arose, we find that there was capacity in the system but that it was not used because of the inability of controllers and managers to fit the aircraft into the spaces that existed.
Air traffic control capacity depends not only on finance but on expertise. Both are still in somewhat short supply in many parts of Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam mentioned Euro-control. It certainly has a wealth of expertise. It has assisted the European countries where it is based and those such as Greece, Spain and Portugal on which so many flights converge. However, the Euro-control partners seem unable to agree to a renewal of the present type of Euro-control convention, and that underlines the difficulties of multinational systems.
We have found it extremely difficult to get agreement, even among a limited number of partners, on the manner in which we should charge the airlines for the services which they enjoy through air traffic control. That has represented a considerable problem for Great Britain, although some other countries seem to have taken it rather more lightly.
Our national air traffic service, which through the participation of the CAA provides the ATC services in United Kingdom air space, is doing all that it can to improve matters, but it must be appreciated that most of the problems, whether technical or arising from industrial action, arise in areas outside the United Kingdom's responsibility.
Of course, we shall do our part to improve the liaison between our ATC services and those of our friends in Europe, but I question whether at present the all-singing, all-dancing, all-embracing all-European air traffic control system would necessarily solve more problems than it would create, or exacerbate. For example, would we move only at the pace of the slowest? Would industrial disputes be fewer? Or, indeed, when they occurred, would they be any less damaging if all

the air traffic controllers in Europe had a common employer? I doubt it. Are we ready to move to a neo-federal solution whilst in some countries controllers are civilians and in others they are military personnel, whilst in some countries priority is given to military considerations and in others to civil considerations?
Our systems do not necessarily have to be common, but should be compatible technically and in volume capacity. Therefore, I intend to consider what we need in Britain in terms of our domestic air traffic control system, and what we hope will be provided by our partners to whom our traffic goes to take business to their countries. I hope that if each national State will consider its own programme to meet the demands likely to be made upon it we can get together to decide how we can make our systems compatible. We shall all draw upon a similar well of statistics. It is remarkable how often the aviation experts working independently can come to similar conclusions about the size and timing of the market for the air transport product.
I hope that we shall be able to look at these matters independently, consider how we each wish to finance those systems, and then consider how we can make the systems work together to the satisfaction of the air traveller.
Let me comment briefly upon some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle). It was interesting that while to a large extent my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam was advocating a programme of meeting demand without any restriction, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West was suggesting that it might be right not to meet the demand.
I am not willing to prejudge the work being done by the two committees appointed to consider airports policy in Britain generally, and in the South-East especially, by the previous Government. It is noteworthy that that Government did two things about airports policy. They stopped us building Maplin to answer the needs of air traffic in the South-East, and they set up two committees. I have to wait to read what the two committees report, as they will report fairly shortly—I hope before the end of the Summer Recess. When we have received their


reports we shall consider what the Government are to do to provide the facilities that our predecessors decided they would not provide.
It may help if I briefly remind the House that I have taken no decision yet on where provision should be made if it is needed. Six proposed sites have been indicated by one of the committees. I hope that it will be remembered that five of them will not get an airport. I suggest that some of those who are now engaged in raising money and spending money to the benefit of very few except printers and lawyers consider holding their fire until they see whether their area has been selected as a possible site for the airport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam said that there should be no shilly-shallying over making a decision. There will be none. We shall not delay over making a decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West, should not believe all the propaganda that he reads about Schipol. It is an airport that has hardly more traffic than Gatwick, which is our second airport at London. It has about as much traffic as that which is contemplated for the fourth terminal at Heathrow airport. That puts it into perspective. As 85 per cent. of the passengers that arrive at London's airports wish to come to London or the South-East, even if they all arrived at Schipol first they would all demand services to fly into London's airports. I do not think that my hon. Friend would remove the need to provide that capacity by insisting on passengers travelling via Schipol at great inconvenience rather than coming directly to London.

EMPLOYMENT (LONDON)

4.18 a.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I consider myself fortunate to be able to initiate a debate on London. One of the great difficulties from which London Members suffer is the refusal of the business managers to provide proper time at a sensible hour to enable the vast and grave problems that confront London to be properly debated and considered by Parliament.
When our previous debates have taken place on the London area we have always

had the pleasure of the presence of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Fins-berg), who is now an Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I must express my disappointment that he is unable to be with us this morning and that we have an Under-Secretary of State for Employment on the Government Front Bench. The subject ranges much wider than employment.
The parts of the Bill that relate to the London area cover a wide range of environmental problems. It is a shame that the one Minister who has taken a close interest in our debates in the past, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, is unable to be present to answer questions on the environment which I guess many of my hon. Friends will be raising.
There is no contention between London Members on both sides of the House that we need a Minister for London to be provided from funds made available by the Bill. The hon. Member for Ravens-bourne (Mr. Hunt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) have both put that matter before the House. I believe that the time has come for a positive move in that direction.
London is a major centre not only for the United Kingdom but for the European Community. It is an international financial and commercial centre. It is one of our great regrets, however, that the strength of the industrial base of London and the employment prospects resulting from that strength of industrial base have been somewhat diminished in the last 20 years. As a result of policies followed by successive Governments, and policies followed by the Greater London Council, there has been a drain of jobs away from London.
I do not take the view that regional policies followed by previous Governments were wrong. They were right to try to bring employment and work to other parts of the country. Where they have done damage to London is in encouraging industry to leave London. Rather than successfully creating jobs in areas where they were desperately needed, this has created unemployment and difficulty in the London area.
I can speak with heat and passion on this subject. In the area that I share with


my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), we have seen over the course of 20 years well over 90,000 jobs lost. This has placed enormous strains upon London, and in particular on that part of London that we represent.
As a major centre, we should receive special treatment, and certainly the sort of treatment that is available to many other parts of the country, for in London we can find every problem that confronts any other part of the United Kingdom. There is nowhere in Britain with a greater housing problem than that in London. There is nowhere in Britain with more slums and worn out houses than we have in London. I am sure that the Under-Secretary, when he replies to the debate, will recognise that there are areas of London with unemployment figures approaching the level of the highest in Great Britain. I exclude Northern Ireland.
Whenever hon. Members legitimately put forward their points of view on problems relating to their constituencies, we can claim that our problems in London match theirs, and in many cases far outweigh them. We need a new and major effort by the Government. They will receive support from each side of the House if they start to take a major initiative to deal with the problems of London.
The Greater London Council has been a failure. I do not say that in a party political sense, because I believe that the GLC has been a failure under each of the major parties in London. It has not come up to the expectations held by Londoners when it was created.
Tourism places considerable burdens on towns and cities which have a large influx of visitors. As Members of Parliament, we know from experience how, in the summer months, it is almost impossible to struggle through to the gates of the Palace of Westminster because of the hordes of visitors who are enjoying themselves. Yet the facilities that are provided for those tourists are primarily provided by the London ratepayers. There ought to be a greater interest by the Government in meeting the costs involved in coping with this vast influx of tourists into this great metropolis each year.
Linked to that is something else that is very close to my heart which I believe to be of vital interest to London. That is the question of again having an exhibition centre capable of providing the sort of facilities that this centre of international trade, commerce and industry deserves. The National Exhibition Centre at Birmingham is a hightly desirable development that fulfils a need for that part of Britain, but it is no substitute at all for the need and desperate requirement for London itself to have a new major exhibition centre.
I have made some inquiries among exhibition organisers, and they forecast that in 1980 there will not be a square foot of empty exhibition space available in Great Britain. Yet they could mount many more major exhibitions to the benefit of British trade, industry and commerce if there were a suitable exhibition centre in London. I hope that the Minister will take that on board, because it has implications for his responsibilities as Under-Secretary of State for Employment. If London had that sort of centre, it would make a significant impact on some of its unemployment problems. If such a centre were provided, we would attract people who would combine a business and pleasure visit—doing business with British manufacturers while attending an exhibition.
I want to refer briefly to transport. I come from the south of London. It is about 15 miles from my home in my constituency to Parliament. In the morning it can take me well over 1½ hours to travel that short distance by car. One of the complicating factors that has led to greater congestion on our roads from the South—no doubt the same applies to roads from the North and West—is the policy pursued by the GLC, albeit by sanction of Private Acts passed by this House, to institute bus lanes. I believe that bus lanes are monstrous.
When I looked through the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, I noticed a reference to transport and ancillary services. I hope that I do not trespass on the Chair's tolerance by referring to this. However, I hope that the GLC will note that, far from contributing to a lessening of traffic problems, the bus lane policy has lead to a complication and increase in traffic congestion. In


many cases that policy has left half a road virtually empty during peak traffic times, with the occasional bus going through, whereas it could be carrying twice the number of commuters who are left sitting and swearing in their cars in dense and packed traffic.
In all our areas we face the problem of heavy lorries from the Continent distributing goods throughout London. Particularly for traffic from the Continent, greater use could be made of movement on the Thames rather than on the roads. Government after Government have failed to exploit the potential of the Thames and, now that we are in the Community, of developing the sort of waterborne transport that comes from the heart of Europe across the Channel and straight into the heart of London. The matter deserves a great deal more thought and research. I hope that the Government will start to institute that sort of research to demonstrate that it is or is not feasible. We need a study so that we can start to use the Thames as a great artery into the centre of London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East and I have many things in common. One of them is the great development at Thamesmead, where we share the responsibility of looking after the residents who have moved into the area. On the transport side, we are both very interested in the Government's views on the future of the Jubilee line. I consider it to be essential, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will develop that theme, because it will allow at least a link to be made which will greatly ease some of the transport difficulties in the area. I should like to see the line go a little further, right down into Erith. But to get it to Thamesmead would be a good first step. I shall argue about the extension to Erith later, once we have achieved that first breakthrough.
Another problem at Thamesmead and throughout the London area is the growing disquiet felt by residents in council accommodation, particularly high-rise flats. They are coming to my advice bureaux in increasing numbers, expressing their grave fears that they and their children will never get out of those high-rise flats into more suitable accommodation, because of the policy of the sale of council accommodation. I hope that the

Under-Secretary will say something about the Government's thinking and what advice they will give to local authorities to ensure that people who are imprisoned with their young children in those flats can have the hope that they will not be confined there for the rest of their lives. I hope that the Government will have a policy that will allow them preference in getting into more suitable accommodation, rather than there being the willy-nilly selling of houses with gardens to other tenants.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The Greater London Council has now notified the London borough of Hackney that from October this year there will be no nominations for it. As we have a majority of high-rise flats, my hon. Friend's point is well taken in my area. This act of vandalism by the GLC is creating just the problems that he describes.

Mr. Wellbeloved: This will become a real problem. At the last meeting of the Bexley council there was a determined demonstration by tenants of high-rise flats, who at that stage confined their activities to the use of strong language. I believe that if people in Hackney and other parts of London, certainly my area, do not have the hope of leaving such flats, they will become very angry and we shall see some difficult scenes arising directly from the policy that is being imposed by the Government.
As I understand it, the GLC is taking this hard line as a reprisal against those London authorities which have not fallen in with it with respect to the transfer of GLC estates. That sort of vindictiveness does nothing to help solve the problms facing those in desperate need of housing accommodation. Many of these wish to escape from the prison of high-rise flats, where their children cause them grave concern as they play on balconies, or, if they go down 13 flights to the ground, where they are too far away from Mum to allow her to protect them from the dangers to which they are exposed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East will agree that many of the problems of Thamesmead, although they continue to exist, have to a large degree been overcome. This is due to the spirit of those who have moved there and to organisations such as the Thamesmead


Community Association, which has drawn together the local community. In this way the people have been able to work together. That is why I am glad that in the Bill there is provision for the Government to make grants to local authorities for the development of community associations and activities. The money is not sufficient, but it is a modest token. I hope that some of that money will come the way of Thamesmead so that this inspiration of the people, helping them to overcome the problems imposed on them by the planners, will be even more successful.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Is my hon. Friend really suggesting that he believes that the money identified in the Supplementary Estimates will be spent on the purposes he suggests? Is he not aware that the Government Front Bench have made it clear that there is to be a complete cutback and that savings will be made in this very area? I beg my hon. Friend, do not, for Pete's sake, give the Government credit for saying what they mean.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am an optimistic fellow, and I was working on the basis that even this Government would listen to the voice of reason being put by myself and my hon. Friends. I believe that the stony hearts of Ministers will be touched by our appeal and that they will ensure that money is available in these areas of which we speak.
My last point concerns education, which I know falls outside the Under-Secretary's responsibility. I hope that he will pass on the point I make to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Education has become a matter of controversy in my constituency as a result of a decision of the Bexley local council to close down a highly successful all-ability school and to reopen a grammar and secondary modern school, using the two buildings occupied by the all-ability school. My appeal is that the Minister should convey to the Secretary of State the pleas from teachers, parents and all with an interest in education in my area that he should not stick to the letter of the law in allowing only the statutory two months for objections to the scheme which are now flooding in. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will convey that to his right hon. and learned Friend, that there will be an extension

leading through the summer holidays into October or November and that there will be no mad rush to proceed with this section 13 proposal without giving adequate time for local people to make their views known.
I have touched on only a few subjects. I have not dealt with them in depth, because at 4.40 in the morning—it is not even night—many hon. Members wish to make their speeches, to hear the Government's reply, to go back to their beds and to refresh themselves for the rest of the parliamentary procedure before the Summer Recess.

4.41 a.m.

Mr. Martin Stevens: : I shall confine my remarks to one of the subjects covered by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), namely, employment. It is probably as true for the country as a whole as it is for London that the problem can be solved only by a number of different Departments and agencies working together.
Fulham has the second highest and fastest growing level of unemployment in London. Between 1972 and 1977 Fulham lost 591 per cent. of manufacturing jobs. That was more than three times the average rate of decline in inner London. Yet when I took my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to visit our jobcentre some months ago we found that there were about 4,000 registered male unemployed and about 4,000 job vacancies. Nationally there are approximately 850,000 job vacancies. If those vacancies could be filled not only would much unhappiness be eliminated but the saving in terms of expenditure on unemployment benefit would be substantial and would go a long way to help to solve many of our problems. I have no doubt that the Government are considering ways in which job vacancies and applicants can be more closely and successfully interlocked.
In considering the problem—rising unemployment and at the same time an almost equal number of job vacancies in London—we have to start, first, as the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford hinted, with the educational picture.
Many experiments have been tried since the war. It was thought that the great


panacea would be to introduce engineering workshops into schools and to produce trained engineers. But since then the number of engineering jobs in London has fallen by about 150,000. It is clear to me that the reason why the engineering team is paid less than the marketing or the financial team or any other group of specialists is that in trying to plan efficiently some years ago we produced a flood of engineers, and the absence of market demand has led to gross underpayment of that category of experts.
I find three serious gaps in the philosophy of education in inner London when applied to employment. The Inner London Education Authority is beginning to show some slight relaxation, but in the past it always insisted that its job was to provide a broad general education, not to encourage schoolchildren to set their sights on any special career prospects because they might make the wrong choice and live to regret it. It was thought that they might specialise too soon and that there were philosophical objections to trying to tailor boys and girls to fit the needs of industry. I do not say that there is anything wrong in that philosophy. Indeed, I share the view of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford that the subject of the debate ought not to be a party issue.
There is nothing immoral in seeking to avoid the toothpaste tube production of industrial stereotypes, but there should be some relaxation—as there has been—in the feelings in schools about the real world of work. I particularly hope that school teachers will look more favourably on manufacturing industry as a career for their pupils and less favourably on the sort of clerical jobs that so many teachers regard as having a moral and social superiority. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education will use his influence to develop that trend.
Another weakness in the education system is that children are not taught to speak articulately about the world of jobs. I do not know whether other hon. Members have the same experience in their constituencies, but there are many schools in Fulham and not one has a debating society. I cannot persuade head teachers to introduce that form of training, which I believe to be enormously

valuable. As a result, children are inarticulate when speaking to grown-ups, and that also applies when they are seeking jobs. I hope that the Secretary of State will use his influence to increase training in debating which could give children the self confidence which is, perhaps, the most valuable attribute that education can provide.
Another problem is that many children in London have unrealistic aspirations about their career prospects. We have a number of organisations in Fulham that try to keep school leavers amused and keep their spirit unbroken. Without exception, those running such groups say that the reason why children cannot or will not take jobs is that they have absurd ideas about what they can expect to earn and the satisfaction that they can expect to enjoy in the sort of jobs to which untrained young people can be assigned.
As I said earlier, the problem should be tackled in a non-partisan way, but I must make one modest party point. The previous Government attached great importance to raising the living standards of the low paid. Put like that, it sounds a charming and generous outlook. It sounds good on an election platform, but what in fact it had the effect of doing was to reduce the incentive of children to learn a trade, to take up an apprenticeship. Many of the children to whom I have talked have said that they are not going to learn a trade because their Dad has told them that they will be better off unskilled rather than skilled. Therefore, it is very important for the Government—I know that they are doing this—to increase the immediate advantages to children of learning a trade.
One of the situations that we inherited was that if a boy took an apprenticeship training course under the Manpower Services Commission—my figures may be a little out of date; this was the position three months ago—he would get £22·50 a week, and when he had paid his dinner money and the cost of his travel he would be worse off than he would have been if he had stayed at home and had the unemployment benefit of £19·50 a week.
Encouragement, both philosophically and in terms of hard cash, should be given to children to learn trades and acquire skills. Not only from the point of view of their own future but from the


point of view of the country's hopes for a successful future on a national scale, it is tremendously important that we should get the children trained not necessarily merely for skill that they will follow all their lives but to acquire the habit of training so that they will recognise that the best careers and the best rewards do not come to the ignorant and the unskilled.
All of those factors are related to education. The next stage is that children do not know enough about the real world of work, either when they are at school or immediately after they have left, to form any very strong opinion about the kind of life they want to lead. This does not apply to what one might call the grammar school stream, and even, perhaps, to the top of the next stream, but it applies to the 40 per cent, at the bottom of the heap, who are clearly not getting the concentrated help and attention that they need.
One of the things that I am doing in Fulham with the help of a multi-ethnic group of people is to compile a register based on all the employers and professional and business people in my constituency, indicating what they do, how many people they employ, where they work, and the name and telephone number of, one hopes, the person willing to help, and stating what that person is willing to do. Every school leaver and careers teacher can have access to this register. They will be able to see that company X offers an apprenticeship or an apprenticeship training course, or chartered accountant Y is willing to give one night a month of his time to giving advice to children who are thinking of entering that particular profession.
This is the kind of service which does not now exist. Local authorities do not have the staff or the patience, or in some cases the knowledge and experience, to compile such a register. I hope that that will be a service that is very shortly available in my constituency.
Then there is the failure of many children in inner London schools to recognise and to take up the opportunities that are offered. One has the frustrating experience of persuading a local business organisation to introduce a new apprenticeship scheme, it agrees to take on eight new

apprentices, and in a couple of months' time one goes along to see the new apprentices at work. In reply to the question "How many of these apprentices live in the borough?" one is told "None of them does. They come from Acton, Ealing and Ruislip, and places such as those."
I do not know why it is, and I cannot explain it, but the nearer to the centre of London one gets, the less able and willing are the children to make use of those employment opportunities available under the MSC and other initiatives that exist. What we are doing about that is to make, through the local council—it costs about £200 a time—a series of travelling automated slide shows which will show children in school some of the things that other children have done to obtain local jobs.
Most people desire to work in relatively small organisations and as near to home as they can. There is a low rate of industrial unrest in small businesses in comparison with large ones. One does not need to be an expert financier to recognise that, with the cost and inconvenience of travel, people would rather work near their homes than have to travel 10 miles. That brings in the planning services, and local planning authorities must be more flexible in terms of such things as conformity of use and make it easier for small businesses to obtain and develop street corner sites.
One could discuss these difficulties throughout the night, and some hon. Members hope that I shall do so. I think that I have said enough to indicate that the reason why we have made so little progress is that the problem covers so many areas—education, employment and environmental planning. I hope that as a result of the debate the Government will be able to suggest that a forum or structure within London of an all-party nature should be established. Apart from pooling the experiences that I have described, it could give a lead that would be of practical and immediate help. For example, the trade unions could do a great deal in helping schoolchildren learn the skills of their trade after school hours, and I am sure that most employers would be delighted to let them do that. If we acted together in a non-partisan way, we could promote a great many practical


solutions and take realistic steps to improve a situation of which every hon. Member from London is all to sorrowfully aware.

4.57 a.m.

Mr. John Cartwright: I should like to begin by taking up the issue of employment. It is the key to solving many of the problems of the rundown inner urban areas of London. The Government favour free market forces, but those will not sort out the problems of employment in inner London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) recalled, our part of London has lost a substantial number of jobs in recent years as a direct result of free market forces. Firms discovered that it was better to rationalise their operations in sites away from London because of operating costs, or they discovered that it was more profitable to sell a London site for use as a riverside hotel, and we lost a substantial amount of manufacturing employment.
We need a good deal of co-operation between all sorts of agencies. An example of that co-operation was included in the GLC's general powers Bill. I am delighted that the Greater London Council is proposing to make provision for small firms setting up in business in the inner London area. My local authority has done a great deal to encourage small firms that have left the area, and that has been a success.
Small firms need a lot of hand holding, a lot of practical assistance. I was pleased to learn of the GLC's ideas on providing guarantees for loans to such firms.
It is disappointing that the Government took a strong and intransigent line against the GLC having those powers. Apparently they have removed them from the Bill without any publicity and without any reaction or comment, as far as I can discover, from the GLC itself. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) and I have decided to block the Third Reading of the Bill so that the House can debate what happened to those powers and why they have been removed and have an opportunity to say that such powers ought to be available to the GLC to tackle London's employment problems.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Will my hon. Friend also record that the Evening News, which had so much to talk about a year ago, apparently has not heard about the removal of those powers either, so its reporting staff seems to be pretty lacking in this House?

Mr. Cartwright: I accept that point. I cannot see any signs of the Evening News watching our debate, although, no doubt, like the other London evening paper, it will complain bitterly that London Members are not as vocal on behalf of London and its problems as Members from other parts of the country are about their areas.
The question of transport is important to the employment problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford has once again forestalled me, as he so often does, by referring to the issue of the Jubilee line. It is vital. The GLC has said on many occasions that the building of the Jubilee line is an essential boost for the development of Docklands. It is an act of faith to all the developers in the Docklands area to show that the GLC and the Government and all the other agencies involved really do mean business in developing the Docklands area.
As my hon. Friend has said, the Jubilee line is a vital link for Thames-mead. It is not acceptable to us that we should dump 45,000 people on a fairly barren site on the edge of the Thames and not provide them with adequate means to get back to central London where their jobs lie. When Thamesmead was planned, it was intended that the locality would provide jobs for its residents. Sadly, those jobs have gone and therefore people in Thamesmead have to travel long distances to work. The Jubilee line would provide them with one clear, radical and sensible means of getting from their homes in Thamesmead to their jobs.
When the Labour Government indicated that they were not very keen on the Jubilee line and were not prepared to provide much support for it, Sir Horace Cutler, the leader of the GLC, had some stern things to say. The GLC delivered a sharp rebuke to the Labour Government. That I understand. What I find rather harder to understand is that a different attitude is being displayed by Sir Horace when the present Government are showing no great signs of enthusiasm for the Jubilee line.
A 12-month pause has been established and Sir Horace has apparently accepted it. I find that a rather odd reaction. I should have thought that if he was sincere in his original rejection of the Labour Government's lack of support for the Jubilee line he would have shown just as much fire, determination and willingness to stand up to the Conservative Government and fight for his cherished project.
The other thing that I find rather odd about the Government's attitude to the Jubilee line and Docklands transport in general is that, while the Government have poured cold water on the project and have imposed a 12-month pause, they have given the go-ahead for certain major road schemes, for example, the Docklands southern relief road and the East London river crossing, both of which will be expensive and environmentally damaging to the areas through which they go.

Mr. Stevens: Is either of those two projects likely to be more expensive than the extension of the Jubilee line?

Mr. Cartwright: At the moment, the total cost of the Jubilee line project is about £325 million. The total road package proposed for the Docklands area is between £450 million and £500 million. Those are figures provided by the GLC. I think that they underline my argument. At a time when we are all desperately worried about the energy crisis and our future oil supplies, it is a strange policy for the Government to be thinking about roads investment on that scale and not at the same time giving encouragement to railway investment, which is very much more efficient in terms of energy use.
I make two brief comments about housing. For all London Members, housing remains a major problem. However, over the years I have found that the scope of the problem in my area is changing. It is no longer a problem so much of quantity. It is now one of quality. My Friday night advice service is attended by fewer people who are looking for housing and who have none. I get far more people who have housing but are dissatisfied with what they have. They want transfers to more attractive and more suitable property, and that is a need which it is becoming more and more difficult to meet.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford said, the great demand from young married couples is to get away from their high-rise flats into houses with gardens. The policy of selling houses in this area has caused tremendous difficulties. It is not just that the GLC is selling homes to tenants already occupying those homes. It is that it is increasingly selling houses that have fallen vacant and would have been available for people wishing to transfer from flats.
On Friday nights it is an increasingly bitter experience for me to meet young married couples with children, from Thamesmead especially, living on the sixth and seventh floors of high-rise flats who ask why they cannot have the empty houses which they can see from their flats. Often they have been empty for several months, and they are boarded up and waiting. I have to tell them that it is impossible because the houses have been earmarked for sale. I had a letter this morning from my GLC district housing manager saying that because of the scarcity of houses and the selling policy the only cases now being transferred into houses in my area are those with top medical priority.
I want to underline strongly what my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford said about the impact of this policy on young married couples. They feel imprisoned in their flats. This problem is causing tremendous marital difficulties and health troubles, and they see no hope, no possibility of ever getting out of their prisons of high-rise flats into houses with gardens for their children.
The other matter concerns the other end of the age scale. It is the problem of elderly owner-occupiers. The London borough of Greenwich has had a longstanding policy of helping elderly owner-occupiers who can no longer struggle with the problems of meeting the outgoings on their houses and keeping them in a good state of repair. The council is willing and happy to buy such a house and to rehouse the pensioner concerned in a small flat which is much more comfortable and convenient. It is a very popular scheme. It has been going for a number of years. Of course, it is a scheme which takes time to sort out, because such a deal cannot be finalised until the council


comes up with a suitable offer acceptable to the pensioner concerned.
But we have had another snag in the past few weeks. Because of the action of the present Government, the local authority now has to make application for individual loan sanction in each case, because it is classed as being municipalisation. At the moment between 80 and 90 cases are help up by red tape in the Department of the Environment while each of them is examined. This means that 80 to 90 pensioners are in a state of uncertainty and worry. Their sons and daughters explain to me how long they have been waiting and ask why the deal cannot be finalised when their pensioner parents are happy to move. The reason is that the deal has been held up deliberately in the Department of the Environment.

Mr. John Hunt: Would it not make more sense for the council to build its own purpose-built sheltered accommodation rather than acquire individual houses? Surely that would avoid the delays that the hon. Gentleman has described.

Mr. Cartwright: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point completely. My local authority has the largest stock of purpose-built sheltered accommodation in London. The problem is that in order to move old people out of a three-bedroom house with a garden that they cannot maintain, one has to buy the house from them and allow them to move into sheltered accommodation or a flat. It is a much more difficult operation if they have to sell on the open market to someone else and then seek to be re-housed by the council, because of the constraints and other problems that occur.
The Government appear to regard this programme as wicked Socialist municipalisation. It is nothing of the sort. This scheme for helping elderly owner-occupiers is carried out under circular 55 of 1957, which was issued by a Conservative Government to meet the real and genuine need. I hope that the Minister will make sure that an urgent message is relayed to the Department of the Environment. I cannot believe that even the hardhearted Ministers to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford referred want to display an intran-

sigent and insensitive attitude towards pensioners who are in need and worthy of help. If we have achieved nothing else in the debate, I hope very much that this message will go firmly and swiftly to the Ministers at the Department of the Environment asking them to cut through the red tape so that between 80 and 90 pensioners can have the home that they want.

5.12 a.m.

Mr. John Hunt: I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) on his initiative in entering the ballot for this debate, his good fortune in drawing a high place and for the generally constructive tone of his speech. I agree with a great deal of what he said, particularly the earlier part of his remarks.
I share his regret that our only opportunity to debate the affairs and problems of Greater London seems to be through this facility of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which means that the debate takes place at this extraordinary hour as dawn is breaking over Dockland. Like the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, I feel that this situation has continued for far too long, under successive Governments.
London's problems are repeatedly squeezed out of the parliamentary timetable. We are given no opportunity to debate the difficulties of our constituencies. There are special and unique problems in London. A number have been mentioned in the spheres of education, transport, tourism and, of course, employment, which is the main subject of the debate. It would be much better if we were allowed a half-day debate on London once a year. If that is not possible, we should be allowed at least a Question Time for London from time to time.
I feel, however, that for the first time in a long period the voice of London and the problems of London are being heeded at ministerial level. There have been a number of examples in recent days. I agree that this voice would be heard even more effectively if there were a Minister who was specifically charged with responsibility for London's affairs, but that is another issue. In spite of the lack of such a Minister, London has been faring well under the present Administration. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry announced only a few days


ago the relaxation of the industrial certificates procedure for Greater London, and today we had the welcome news of a halt to the further dispersal of civil servants from Greater London.
All these are encouraging signs to those of us who have been disturbed for a long time about the drift of jobs and people from our capital city. This has been a worrying trend. In 1961 the Greater London population was 8 million. Today it has shrunk to 7 million—a sharp and substantial drop in a relatively short time.
In January of last year unemployment in Greater London touched a peak of 167,000, and I would think that it is roughly the same now. In other words, one in nine of the total unemployment of Great Britain is here in London. I often wonder whether some of our colleagues from the Northern region and Scotland appreciate the extent of the problem in the capital and the grim facts of unemployment here on our very doorstep.
Too many people still seem to think that the streets of London are paved with gold. That is a pretty sick joke for an unemployed teenager in Poplar, for example, where in January 1978 the male unemployment rate was 14·8 per cent.—it is roughly the same now—or in Deptford, where it was 14 per cent., and Stepney, 13·6 per cent. As has been said, that is as bad as anywhere else in the country. These are the problems facing our capital city. They demonstrate the urgency of the need to revive and restore the economy of the capital.
I have said before, and I say tonight—I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) echo it—that the key to this problem lies with 150,000 small firms based in London. One-third of London's work force is already employed by these firms. Each of them would need to take on only one more employee and London's unemployment would be virtually solved overnight.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford was a little critical of the GLC, perhaps understandably, on political grounds, but moves are being made by the GLC to revive and rejuvenate particularly the Inner London and dockland areas. As for encouraging small business, the GLC already owns 300 units of industrial accommodation which are

suitable for small firms and proposes to build more. Additional help is being given through the GLC's London industrial centre. That can be of significant help to small business men wanting to set up their firms in the Greater London area. The other plus factor in the encouragement of small businesses is that all the figures show that the smaller the firm, the less likelihood there is of industrial stoppage and dispute. In a sense we are assisting industrial relations.
Our capital is at crisis point. If the decline in our population and industries continues, it will frustrate the revival of London. As people and jobs go, we are left with a shrinking rate base. A heavier burden of rates is carried upon fewer shoulders. It is staggering to learn that in 1976 the average domestic rate payments in London were 64 per cent. higher than in the rest of the country. The figures are probably the same today. That is an appalling penalty to pay for living and working in London. I hope that it will be taken into account by the Secretary of State for the Environment when he makes his rate support grant calculations. London cannot take any further rate burdens.
The GLC is rightly concentrating its regeneration activities upon Inner London and Docklands. It deserves the fullest backing and support. The debate has focused parliamentary and ministerial attention on London's pressing problems, and I hope that our late night vigil will not have been in vain.

5.22 a.m.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I cannot understand the remarks about Government policy by the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt). The general view is that London faces an economic, social and employment blitz imposed by what has been described as the most reactionary Government since 1945. The original blitz had come to an end before 1945. However, we are experiencing a blitz as a result of the Government's policies.
Whatever is done about regional policy, a general upturn in investment, particularly in the public sector, will do more for employment in London than any adjustments to regional policy. I declare an interest. I live in central London and my family is growing up there. I have


a financial interest in the amount of money provided by the Government to sustain the living standards of people in the area which I represent. I also declare a non-financial interest as a director of the charitable company which runs the Jubilee sports hall at Covent Garden.
For some years we have had the ridiculous resource alocation working party policy of transferring resources out of London. That is the fault of the Labour Government. I make no apologies for them. RAWP appears to be continuing. We must add to that the reduction in expenditure on health services, in breach of the Conservatives' manifesto pledge that they would not reduce resources to the Health Service. A total of £45 million has been taken from the area health authorities and handed over to the VAT man as a result of the VAT increase. That is a transfer of resources out of the Health Service. It cannot be denied. No money is being provided to make up for that loss. That is an absolute and direct breach of promise by the Government that will adversely affect health provision in London and other areas.
We are faced with a policy under which housing is to be sold off. The original idea was that it should be sold to sitting tenants, but newly completed property is being sold off by Tory councils in London, and not to the sort of people for whom that housing was designed. Those people cannot afford the sort of prices that the GLC is charging for its newly completed and rehabilitated properties.
When Environment Ministers were answering questions earlier this week, they were talking about establishing a register of publicly owned land to assist in its disposal to the private sector. Many of my electors would dearly love the Government to establish a register of the property owned in our area by the scabs who run the major property companies in this country who have been exploiting our area over the years—

Mr. Anthony Berry (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Anthony Berry (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household) indicated dissent.

Mr. Dobson: I thought that Whips were supposed to keep quiet during de-

bates. That rule no longer seems to apply.
The area that I represent has been grossly exploited by major property companies over the years, and if public land is to be sold off to them, as appears to be the intention of the Government, that degree of exploitation will be increased, to the great disadvantage of the people whom I represent. They are sick to death of exploitation by property companies over the years. They note that a large number of those property companies make substantial contributions to Conservative Party funds.
The means of transport of the bulk of the people in London is publicly owned. We must enhance that transport. There is no possibility of private investment in public transport of this kind because only the public will provide the money needed to take the Jubilee line into Dock-lands and down to Thamesmead, or to effect the other major improvements in transport facilities, particularly on the railways, that are necessary if the city is to improve its public transport.
We are also faced with severe reductions in the amount of money that will be available for education to the Inner London Education Authority and London boroughs. That will obviously have a deleterious effect on the standards of education. That flies in the face of the sort of promises that the Tories made during the election campaign about aiming to improve educational standards. It is no good producing Black Papers and all that sort of thing and then reducing the amount of public expenditure on education for ordinary people and providing £50 million to assist independent schools and the children going to them.
We heard from Environment Ministers earlier in the week that they object violently to the idea that the Sheffield city council should discriminate between one relatively prosperous part of the city and the less prosperous parts. The people of London must remember that it was made clear by Environment Ministers that they intend to discriminate against the great conurbation of London and other major conurbations and transfer funds from the areas where they are most needed—the inner cities—to the shire


counties. I hope that Tory hon. Members who represent London constituencies, or who purport to represent them, will make representations to the Government in an effort to ensure that the promised swinging of money out of the inner cities to the shire counties will not be carried through. If it is, it will have a most damaging effect on the standards of people in London and in other major cities.
We have been told that the lifting of the limit on industrial development certificates will assist the growth of employment in the London area. That seems likely to have only a minor effect, if it has any effect at all. I cannot see any reason why the average entrepreneur, galvanised by the Secretary of State for Industry, should wish to galvanise in central London instead of building on green field sites in the rest of the South-East. We should remember that the limit on IDCs in the rest of the South-East was lifted at the same time. It is to areas in the South-East that jobs are likely to go.
The hon. Member for Ravensbourne referred to the proportion of jobs provided by small firms in London. The Government should remember that a high proportion of jobs in London is provided by the public sector. Most of those jobs are vital. If we are to maintain a decent level of employment in London in the areas where it is presently reasonable, and if we are to claw back and improve the level of employment in areas where unemployment is presently too high, we shall need a high level of investment in public sector industries, which provide such a substantial proportion of London's employment.
I have no moderate views about the GLC. Tory or Labour—controlled, it has been a disgrace and a failure. The GLC should be abolished as soon as possible. It does no useful job of work. Yesterday it was entertaining a select number of guests at a cost of £10,000 to the ratepayer to talk about the future of London. I can think of few less worthwhile ways of spending £10,000 of public money than having a big beano at County Hall, especially at this time.
If we consider the present regime at the GLC—not to be confused with the sheep-

meat regime or any of the others—we must recognise that there are those in the Cutler regime who are not determined to defend the interests of the people of London against the policies being pursued by the Government. Under this Government Sir Horace Cutler will be the Quisling of London. Indeed, he is not a Quisling, he has been pressing forward with policies—

Mr. John Hunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to refer to the leader of the Greater London Council as a Quisling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is not a parliamentary word that is greatly appreciated here.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw it.

Mr. Dobson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hunt: Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech, but, as I have said, it is not a parliamentary word that is greatly appreciated.

Mr. Dobson: I am obliged Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to say—perhaps I should try to say it more eloquently and more carefully—that the leader of the GLC is enthusiastic in his desire to fall in with the policies of the Government. I believe that the policies being pursued by the Conservative Party will have a very damaging effect on the general standard of living of the people whom I represent and the people who are represented by my hon. Friends and, indeed, by Conservative Members with London constituencies.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Will my hon. Friend accept my support for that view? Not only are these actions being taken against the interests of Londoners. What is more important is they are being taken in secret. The Greater London Council no longer sits as a proper body. We are getting edicts, press handouts, and everything except properly conducted committee meetings. There is some doubt about the GLC's legality.

Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend that the general standard of public administration at the GLC leaves a


great deal to be desired, because we appear to have government by press release. It is only very recently that we have had further press releases concerning proposals by the GLC, which is not an education authority, to establish a charity which would take £5 million of ratepayers' money, as we understand it, and put it into independent schools in an effort to thwart the activities of the elected education authority for Inner London, the Inner London Education Authority. The GLC should keep its nose out of education. The Act of Parliament under which it operates makes clear that no role whatever is envisaged for the GLC in relation to education in Inner London, and that policy should be applied to other spheres.
I referred earlier to the future of Covent Garden. A large number of London Members will have received today, or very recently, a letter from the chairman of Save Britain's Heritage. To the best of my knowledge, he is not a supporter of the party of which I am a member. He draws attention to inaccuracies, to what he describes as an untruth, and to a slur in a document which was circulated under the hand of the director-general of the Greater London Council about the Jubilee hall recreation centre, about which I declared an interest, very properly, at the beginning of my speech.
I believe that it is necessary to put on record that the document circulated by the GLC was grossly misleading. In its misleading nature it is typical of a great deal of the stuff coming out of County Hall at present by way of press releases and that sort of thing. The document, which was circulated to London Members of Parliament, asserted, among other things, that it is known—this is in relation to the Jubilee sports hall, Covent Garden—that the Covent Garden Community Association is proposing a scheme for that site which
sacrifices the housing and car parking elements of the brief".
That is quite untrue. The Covent Garden Community Association's proposals would have provided housing for 50 people on the site, and the car parking would have been lost in that scheme.
There was a further statement that
It is understood that many local children no longer use the centre, having become alienated by its new image and other clientele.

That was a false statement. The GLC had no evidence on which to base such a statement.
Finally, the document said that the committee which is responsible for the Jubilee hall, Covent Garden, and for the Covent Garden area generally, is resolved that redevelopment for the uses in the action area plan and in the form set out in the brief is the only course of action appropriate for the site.
Since I was aware that that was not the case, I wrote to the director-general of the GLC and received a reply recently. He stated:
I am sorry that you feel the brief was misleading and appreciate that the Committee have not agreed in the precise terms used
—in the documents circulated to hon. Members—
to the planning principles for the Jubilee Market site being the 'only course of action'.
To the best of my knowledge that information has been conveyed only to me, because I wrote to the director-general about it. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the GLC to write a letter explaining the situation to all Members of Parliament to whom it circulated the original document.
I say that not in any sense of vengeance but because I am firmly of the belief that the standard of public administration at the GLC, not only under the present regime but under previous ones, has fallen below the standard that one might reasonably expect from a large public authority. One has only to ask GLC tenants what they think of the GLC's administration of its housing property to know what standards they are being expected to put up with.
To the applause, or pleasure, of my hon. Friends, I say finally that I am convinced that the history of major cities throughout the world shows that there is no decent future for ordinary people in those cities if those cities are ruled and governed on the basis of the free interplay of market forces, to which the present Government are dedicated. Decent standards of living will prevail in this major city, and other major cities throughout Britain and the world, only when there is a high standard and commitment towards public expenditure and public facilities. It is clear that there is no margin for profit in the provision of education, housing or


transport for ordinary people in this city. There is no margin for profit if the people of this city are to pay a reasonable price for those facilities.

5.42 a.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have joined us in what until now has been a most constructive and helpful debate. Although there have been certain points of acrimony, we are obliged to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) for starting it off so well. Let it not be said that Greater London Members are slow to put forward the cause of their area.
We must see employment in London in the context of the Government's general economic policy. Labour Members are wide of the mark in implying that the Government are acting in such a way as to depress all economic activity. The Government's intention is to achive a shift from current consumption to investment. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) said, we accept the need for public investment as well as investment in the private sector.
As to public investment policy in the centre of London, I hope that we can rationalise all the schemes, not too successful, that have been launched in recent years, and that instead of having partnership areas, programme areas, designated districts, special areas and the rest, the Government will simply make inner London a development area. In that way it will qualify for the sort of aid that the Government feel able to give to areas with special needs for important investment programmes and for aid from the European Investment Bank and the regional fund.
We must think of transport within London as well as between London and the rest of the world. We should not be afraid of the proposed major road schemes simply because of the oil crisis. People will need to travel. Even if we have a high oil price, before long other methods of transport will inevitably be evolved, and we shall need a modern road system in London as much as in any other capital city. I endorse the pressure from the Opposition Benches that the Jubilee line should be completed. This is an important aspect of public investment in London's transport which must not be indefinitely delayed.
As regards travel to work, it is not productive to press for shorter and shorter hours of work within the context of the five-day working week. It would be far better to move towards the four-day working week, working the same number of hours but spreading them over four days instead of five. That would immediately relieve pressure on public transport services at peak times.
With regard to transport between London and the rest of the world, I place particular emphasis on the importance of the Channel rail link. It seems that at last our railways and the French railways have worked out between them a practical scheme which is not too expensive and not environmentally damaging. We should not now continue to discuss the matter for years without coming to a decision: we should aim to make an early start. It is extremely important for our exports that we should not have the handicap of the additional handling in order to cross the Channel. In that way we permanently handicap ourselves within the Common Market, because all British exports have that higher cost, which French, German and other manufacturers do not have to suffer when they export their goods across frontiers. The Channel rail link is, therefore, exceptionally important to the future of Britain's trade.
From the point of view of the transport of people, we need to use railway services and not press more and more people to use the airports.

Mr. Wellbeloved: In view of the hon. Gentleman's great connection with the European side of the matter, may I ask him this? I understand that the Channel rail link is likely to cost about £600 million. Does he not think that it is worth while again considering the feasibility of small, fast, surface ships travelling from the centre of Europe along European rivers across the Channel to the centre of London via the Thames? Is not that possibility worth considering, particularly from the Community's point of view?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: It is certainly a subject that should be further considered, but I know of no special obstacle in the way of the development of such traffic at the moment. I often have reason to go to Strasbourg. It is an international


port, and the docks there have oceangoing vessels. This is one of the contributory factors to the city's wealth. I can think of no reason why vessels should not come from Strasbourg into London as matters stand now. But if there is a way in which we can improve and promote that traffic, I am sure that we shall all be very glad to study it.
I believe that there is too much pressure to expand airport facilities at the expense of more conventional methods of transport. I agree, of course, that we need the fourth terminal at Heathrow. Anyone who uses Heathrow must see what disadvantages there are for passengers at peak times. I am sure that we must do whatever is necessary to obtain the full advantage of the investment already made at Gatwick. But I do question whether London needs to be the site for the third national airport. We have two national airports already serving London. The rest of the country must surely have some claim if there is to be the enormous investment which a third national airport would require. If it is, once again, located within easy reach of inner London it might simply add to the general overheating and strain on our resources, without significantly helping to create profitable employment.
Turning to housing, hon. Members know that I have tried for a long time to promote the idea of a new system of short tenancies, and I am delighted that the Government have now taken it up. I hope that it will be favourably received by the Opposition. It is not a matter of controversy that there are large numbers of properties standing empty in London which could be let, and would be let, if there were not a risk to the owners that they might admit a tenant who would then obtain security of tenure.
We want to make better use of our existing housing stock, bearing in mind that, with our shrinking population, if there were greater mobility, population shrinkage would have the effect of natural selection of the unfit properties. People would move out of them and they could be demolished. We do not have sufficient mobility within our present housing stock, for two reasons. One is to do with the fact that there is not the facility for short leases. This, I hope, will shortly be put right.
But we also have the problem that, for the established population, in all too many cases there is security of tenure but no capital. Such people cannot turn their security of tenure into the capital with which to buy other properties in the market. Thus in many cases people who would like to move—families in high-rise blocks, for example—will not move, or cannot move, until they are forced to. In all too many cases they are then destitute, because they have nothing to sell when they eventually move out because they cannot keep pace with rising rents or whatever the reason may be.
I have sought to introduce in this House, under the Ten Minutes Rule, a facility for tenants in the private sector to purchase mansion blocks jointly, through a co-operative tenants' association. Something of that sort has to come. The Government cannot logically stand behind a housing Bill—which we understand is to be introduced in a few months' time—which confers the right for tenants of council flats to acquire their homes without extending a similar right to people living in flats in the private sector.
I recognise that to go as far as mansion blocks is not enough. We have to examine the whole question of security of tenure in the private sector so that we can introduce more mobility and a greater sense of security among those who are ostensibly protected by their security of tenure but who know that, sooner or later, they will be obliged to move. If the Conservative Party believes in a property-owning democracy we must follow that principle through and make it possible for people, when they leave the properties in which they live, to acquire something else and thereby contribute to the better use of the whole housing stock.
London should aim to remain a world capital because it is an attractive place for civilised people to live and work and in which to raise their families. I resist any tendency to allow it to become a tatty, overcrowded stopover, where people can congratulate themselves only on the fact that they have easy facilities to get away.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Of all the problems facing London, that of the inner city areas is by far the most serious. I have listened carefully to the


various Front Bench spokesmen since 3 May, but there has been little evidence that they are taking seriously the enormous social and economic problems facing the inner city areas of London.
Battersea, South is perhaps typical of many parts of inner London. However, it is different in one important respect. It is within a local authority—Wandsworth borough council—which is following the kind of policies that the Government would wish other local authorities to follow. Indeed, the Government are endeavouring to force other local authorities to follow those policies by their economic measures. The effect of Wandsworth's policies on a typical inner city area may be seen by the Government as a model for what they wish to see happen elsewhere in London. It is not a parochial point for me to talk about what is happening in Wandsworth. I am talking about an area the lessons from which might have an impact on other parts of the metropolis.
On a number of occasions Ministers have spoken of their mandate and of enormous electoral support for some of their policies. Given that the Conservative Party gained control of Wandsworth borough council in May 1978, it is interesting to reflect that the swing to Labour between that time and the parliamentary election was probably more marked than in any other part of London. That is a sign of lack of confidence by electors in Wandsworth in the policies being followed by that local authority.
Those policies are most manifest in housing. Hon. Members have referred to housing pressures in various parts of London. The policy of the Wandsworth council of selling council houses both to tenants and to non-tenants is having a damaging effect on the opportunities for rehousing in the area. It is having a particularly damaging effect on tenants in high rise blocks who want to move into more suitable accommodation, especially those with children, and it is having a generally distressing effect on those who are or were hoping for some improvement in their housing conditions. I can only conclude that the Government would like other local authorities to pursue the policies which are having a seriously damaging effect on housing prospects for people in Wandsworth who cannot afford or do

not wish to buy council properties. It is said that Wandsworth has managed to achieve all this by keeping the rates steady, but in fact it has been done by increasing rents to a greater extent than at any time in the history of Wandsworth council.
Another aspect concerns the direct work department of Wandsworth council. It has been said on at least one occasion in the House that the council's direct work department lost £2 million in the last year. But that has happened since the department's policies were changed by the Conservative-controlled council. In the last year of Labour control the direct works department broke even. There has been a deliberate attempt to run down that department, and only since then have losses been incurred. The department's financial deficit is no evidence that direct work departments do not work. Indeed, the reverse. It proves that trouble ensues when attempts are made to run them down.
In the past year or so there have been many other cuts in local services in Wandsworth, including reductions in social services and the scrapping of a plan to build a day nursery, and large increases in charges for many of the elderly and disabled using the social services.
The local authority has recently interpreted the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 in a harsh and restrictive way, to the point where homeless families are having to spend nights in the open because the authority has washed its hands of the responsibility for them.
Another matter causing much concern locally is the future of the three successful law centres in the borough. The council's policy is to base the services on only one centre and to take away the community involvement in the running of the centres. That will be a damaging move to the disadvantage of many of the poorer people in the borough who use the law centres to establish their rights.
There has also been an attempt by the council to take over responsibility for the education services in Wandsworth that are run by the Inner London Education Authority. That has barely been discussed, but it was the basis of a local authority resolution and it would do untold harm to the education prospects of young people in the borough because it would


dismember an effective education authority and replace it with one which could not produce the same educational standards.
I wish to refer to two other issues. The first is the shortage of land for development. There are few sites in inner city areas and it is therefore vital that they should be used to the best advantage and the most useful social and economic purposes. The 26-acre gasworks site in Wandsworth belongs to the GLC and presents a good opportunity for housing development and for industrial development to create more jobs.
The GLC says that the land is polluted and it is not possible to develop housing on the site. There is other evidence from officials at County Hall that the pollution problem could be overcome and that housing could be built on the land. Instead of reconsidering whether housing development could take place, the GLC intends to provide a large sports community. That would not be of benefit to the local community. It would create a few jobs, but not of the sort that provide a sound economic basis in an area which is desperately short of jobs. The GLC must be held at fault for not attempting to do its best for an area where the problems are enormous.
I conclude by referring to the problem of jobs, particularly for young people. There is an article in The Guardian and Labour Weekly today concerning a project in the southern part of my constituency and Tooting dealing with the problems facing young people, particularly young black people, who are unemployed and some of whom are turning to crime.
The question of the opportunities that our society is to offer young people, particularly young black people, is critical. The future of many inner city areas and race relations in those areas will largely depend on whether we can offer decent and worthwhile job opportunities to young people when they leave school.
The article makes clear that that is not happening at the moment. It is regrettable that many of the measures introduced by the previous Labour Government to ease the problem are being reversed by the new Government. Even the measures of the previous Government

were not adequate for tackling this problem, which is serious in all inner city areas. We need urgent action by the Government and the mobilisation of all possible resources before the plight of school leavers turns even more of them towards crime and makes the problem even more difficult to solve.
If nothing else comes out of this debate, I hope that the Government will take this particular issue to heart. There is certainly a need for urgent action, otherwise many of our inner city areas will become quite intolerable and a blot on this country.

6.5 a.m.

Mr. Ted Graham: Although the main thrust of the debate that we have had for the past two hours has rightly been on employment, it is not possible to tackle the problem of employment without relating it to a great many other factors. Some of them are mentioned in the heading of our debate—environment, energy, and transport. We have heard valuable contributions from hon. Members who have also introduced the aspects of housing, education, transport, hospitals and planning. All these matters must form part of this debate—taking place at five minutes past 6 o'clock, after a very long day, and now on the last day of this part of the Session. Perhaps we are masochists to go through this exercise, but we do it because of our concern for our constituencies and our constituents.
Employment is undoubtedly crucial to Edmonton. Much of the aid and assistance represented in these Votes is valuable for employment there. That is why, incidentally, I was delighted last week officially to open a £1 million extension to the factory of a large and highly successful Edmonton-based company, Cryoplants. With my knowledge of its enterprise and reputation for quality, delivery and reliability all over the world, I have no doubt that this extension will provide not only much-needed orders from overseas but work for my constituents.
The whole infrastructure of North London is the background against which prospective employers and prospective employees will view coming to the area. When people look at job advertisements, they want to know a good many things.
They want to know not merely details about the job and its specification but also about the public services, and primarily those provided by the local council, such as education, housing, social services and transport, and they want to know about the quality of life.
What effect does housing have on employment? As an owner-occupier, I can advise anyone seeking work in Edmonton or Enfield that there are many fine localities and attractive homes. But many who are looking for employment in my constituency must rely upon public housing.
Enfield council, like a great many other councils, recognises that it has a role to play in attracting workers to its area. I took the trouble yesterday to speak to the deputy housing manager to find out Enfield council's policy on offering housing. I do not believe that the policy in Enfield is greatly different to that of many other London boroughs. Enfield offers housing to a variety of categories, and certainly to key workers in council employment. It also offers housing to teachers and nurses.
I was very interested to get details of what the council does for key workers in industry, I understand that where a worker wishes to come to a locality such as Edmonton and a firm wishes to have him, it is possible, by an approach to the council, to have the council allocate housing to him provided that that employee is seen to be a skilled worker who, by coming to that concern, will be able to keep in work semi-skilled and unskilled labour or to retard redundancies.
That is a first-class way of using public resources. Yet what prospects can Edmonton employers have when the Enfield Tory council, like a great many other Tory councils in London, is getting out of providing rented accommodation? Enfield council, which has the prime responsibility to assist local industry, is being prodded by the Government, the Tory GLC and its own desire to liquidate community assets. How can my constituents who live in high-rise developments look forward to what they come to me and pathetically cry out for—a house at ground floor level with a garden—when all the desirable houses are up for grabs?

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The younger families of many of my constituents have moved out to Enfield. My constituents are being offered and have been offered housing in past years by the Enfield council when it was controlled by Labour. Is my hon. Friend aware that Enfield council is welshing on those understandings? These poor people come to see me every Friday night demanding that the Government do something about the council welshing on the previous arrangements.

Mr. Graham: I am aware of those circumstances. It has caused a great deal of anger to myself and other Labour colleagues to learn of what the Tory-controlled Enfield council is doing.
A few years ago the Labour GLC and Labour council came to an arrangement. They bought the Klinger site in Silver Street, Edmonton. For 10 years, through various vicissitudes, that factory site was cleared and housing is being built on it for rent not only to people in Edmonton but allocation to GLC tenants. Some of those people would have come from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). Without any consultation, the GLC decided last year that when built those houses would not be handed over to the Enfield council but put on the open market. My constituents are deeply distressed because they cannot be housed, and many other people in inner London are also being deprived.
We cannot divorce housing prospects and the social responsibility of councils from the vital problem of employment. We have dealt with housing. Another responsibility of local councils is education. Last week the action of Enfield council in seeking to lop almost £4 million off its current expenditure led to a large demonstration at the civic centre by parents and teachers, who are not notably the most militant of groups, seeking or demanding information on what would happen about education.
I fear the worst when I look at the record of Enfield council over the past 10 years. That period has been spent remorselessly and relentlessly whittling away the substantial framework of services so carefully built up by the Labour council, of which I had the honour to be the leader some years ago. My knowledge of what the Labour council bequeathed


to them which the Tories have since crippled or killed fills me with foreboding.
I have little doubt that Enfield Tories will have welcomed many of the suggestions made by Conservative associations throughout the country for ways to carry out the remit of the Government.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: : Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a rumour that the Government have informed Tory councils to get into a position in London where they have no services to cut when they decide to cut the rate support grant and the special extra help that is being given to London? They will then not have to raise rates and cut services because there will be no services to cut.

Mr. Graham: I have not heard that rumour, but the position in Enfield after 10 years of a Conservative council is exactly as my hon. Friend has outlined. The council has cut so hard and been so proud to claim that it levies the lowest rates in London that all the chief officers and responsible councillors in Enfield have publicly said that there is no fat to cut from the estimates. Consequently, when the council goes through the exercise this year of having to find £4 million, it can do it not by cutting any surplus or fat but only by causing redundancies or reducing the services, or a combination of both.
When future prospective employees look at London, they will be looking at the kind of environment which it would provide them. In Enfield, the council will be looking at a whole range of services. I have no doubt, from my experience, that it is already talking about freezing the posts which are not now filled. I have no doubt that it is already talking in terms of deferment and delay of a great many capital projects.
In education, the council has been satisfied to be labelled as the authority with the lowest pupil-teacher ratio in Greater London. It can do very little to worsen its record in education. I have no doubt that it will be looking at such things as the hiring of public halls. It will either increase the charges or close the halls altogether. I have little doubt that it will mount an attack on school transport.
I have received letters from the staff of the Southgate technical college and the Edmonton college of further education, two places vitally concerned in improving the quality of employment and education for employment. Both staffs are horrified at the prospect of what they have been told is to happen to their opportunities to train young people to become skilled craftsmen for the factories in the area.
I have little doubt that the council will look at such things as restricting the opening hours of the libraries and of the public parks. I have little doubt that, after years of skimping on the maintenance of roads, the council will be looking at ways in which it can defer for even longer vital maintenance which is required on the roads in the borough.
There are departments in Enfield, all necessary to the environment which we wish to create in order to attract employees, which are already suffering a 30 per cent. and sometimes 40 per cent. shortage of staff. I know that in such departments—for example, the environmental health department—parts of their work are very far behind, putting the health of the public gravely at risk, not because the officers and staff are not dedicated but because the Tory council over the past 10 years has squeezed and crippled their ability to work.
I have to say, however, that in my constituency the unemployment rate is one of the lowest in London at 2 to 3 per cent. Our concern is in attracting the skilled workers to London in order that they can provide further work. I am sorry to have to say that, with councils like that of Enfield, which is a disgrace to the name of local government, the Minister's job will be made more difficult. It will remain so while a council like Enfield persists in trying to pursue the policy of slashing expenditure which has been foisted on it by the Government.

Mr. Thomas Cox: At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) spoke about the lateness of the hour. The scandal of the House is that whenever London Members, irrespective of party, seek to discuss London, the only opportunities we ever get are either on the GLC general powers Bill or on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
I blame the Labour Government much as I am starting to blame this Government because of the failure of the attempts that have been made to try to get some understanding from the Leader of the House that if we cannot have a London Minister we should certainly have a London Question Time.
I and many other hon. Members have been in contact with the London Chamber of Commerce, which recommends strongly that London should have a greater allocation of the time of this House. I am sorry to say that there appears to be no more enlightened thinking on this issue among Ministers in the present Government than there was in the previous Government.
We should remember that we represent London, regardless of the political party to which we belong. It is for us to unite as London Members and to make it clear to the Government that we are not getting a fair share of the time of this House to discuss London matters. Afer all, London is the capital city. It returns the largest number of hon. Members to this House. It is time that a much fairer allocation was given to London so that we might discuss adequately the problems that beset London, not as we have had to tonight, with hon. Members having been here since early yesterday and having to stay in this House to try to bring to the attention of the Minister the problems in their constituencies. Whatever we may disagree about when we discuss how we think London's problems should be tackled, I hope that we agree that we need a proper allocation of time in which to discuss the affairs of London.
Even at this early stage in the life of the present Government, I see very little awareness of the problems of London. The philosophy of "Help yourself and stand on your own two feet" shows very little understanding of our difficulties.
I accept that money is not the sole answer, but our problems will not be resolved without the financial allocation being made to London. We have a Tory Government. We have a Tory GLC. In my own borough and in those of other hon. Members, we have Tory councils. All of them have one view, and that is to cut expenditure. That is all that they are heard discussing. Yet on every issue which has been touched on in this debate—

housing, education, employment, transport, health, and the need for a general improvement in the environment in which our constituents live—without the necessary financial assistance the position will not improve. Tragically, it will worsen.
We have heard already about the proposals to cut expenditure. We can expect cuts, and I have no doubt that there will be a great many more. What both amazes and appals me is that over the past couple of weeks senior Conservative Members have announced cuts in this and that sector and behind them have been rows of Conservative Members shouting their heads off and cheering. But they will be the first to demand that money he made available to their areas, once they begin to see the effects in their areas. When the Labour Party was in Government only a few months ago, day after day Conservative Members demanded greater expenditure for their constituencies. I do not decry them; that is the job of a Member of Parliament. But let us have some honesty. One cannot say that one supports cuts in public expenditure so long as they do not affect one's constituency. It will not be long before Conservative Members are saying that they agree basically with the cuts but that they hope the Minister will realise that their constituencies have special problems that should be given extra consideration and possibly extra help.
The real problem that remains to be faced in Iondon is the substantial cut that will obviously occur in the rate support grant. Rumours are already circulating. When those drastic cutbacks in rate support grant are announced, my reaction will be to say "Heaven help us." We will be up against it. We will be facing all the problems that exist in the large cities of the United Kingdom without the financial help from central Government needed to tackle those problems and to help people living in those areas.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: It will be within my hon. Friend's recollection that when the London Members were fighting hard last year for extra help for London, which we achieved to the extent of £46 million, there were no London Members present on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Cox: Those who take part in London debates will know that that has


occurred on many occasions. No doubt it will happen again.
The problem of housing has been mentioned by several speakers. This remains one of the major issues in many areas of the country, certainly in London. In the borough of Wandsworth the policy of the Government, which is being followed by the local Conservative council, is causing the housing situation to worsen. It sounds wonderful when the Prime Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and insists that the Government are giving opportunities to people to own their own houses and that this can be done only by a Conservative Government. But the right hon. Lady ignores the real problems.
I should like the Minister to explain the policy now being pursued by the Wandsworth borough council. It would appear that the future letting of properties will depend very much on the income received. I have a copy of the council agenda for Tuesday 24 July in which the housing committee report refers to a block of properties that will be handed over by November 1979. We are talking in terms of the next two or three months. The report says:
It is proposed that these dwellings be made available only to tenants registered with the Council for transfer … On the commencement of the proposed tenancies, each tenant will be required to have an income level sufficient to sustain the higher rent without resort to a rent rebate or the receipt of supplementary benefit from the Department of Health and Social Security.
The rent and rates for a one-bedroomed flat will be £16·37; for a two-bedroomed flat, £18; and for a three-bedroomed house. £21·74.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Did I hear my hon. Friend aright—£21 a week just for the rent for a three-bedroomed house?

Mr. Cox: The proposed rent and rates for a three-bedroomed house in this block are £21·74. I am sure that my hon. Friend has now heard the figures correctly.

Mr. Brown: Scandalous.

Mr. Cox: There have been active campaigns for a long time by the tenants of the many high-rise properties in Wandsworth for transfer to more suitable accommodation. We all know the problems presented by high-rise accommoda-

tion for the old, the disabled and mothers with young children. These tenants have seen properties built which they had the right to expect to move into, but their chances of doing so have been removed because their weekly income does not reach the level on which the council insists.
The scandal is that some properties in the borough have been empty for over a year because the council has been searching for people, in the borough and outside, to buy them. Whether they are on the council's waiting list seems immaterial. The council will not allow people living in unsuitable accommodation to occupy them. It wants to sell its housing stock rather than accommodate people who are in genuine housing need.
What is the Government's attitude? Who will be responsible for meeting the needs of people in high-rise accommodation? What is the Government's attitude to a council which keeps properties empty deliberately and ignores the requests of families in high-rise accommodation which is unsuitable?
I turn to the subject of education. In London many schools were built in the days of the London school board 80 or 90 years ago. School rolls are declining in Wandsworth and other areas. Hon. Members on both sides of the House admire the dedication of parents and teachers who become involved in running schools. Parent-teacher associations in Wandsworth campaign to ensure that teachers will not be taken away from a school when the number of pupils diminishes. They want smaller classes so that more help can be given to pupils who have special learning problems. We now have an opportunity to tackle the problems outlined by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens). The teachers are there, the space is there and the children are there.
Expenditure cuts are causing parents to worry about what will happen. I have listened to responses to these fears by the Secretary of State. Education appears to be going through a bleak period. We must ensure not only that there are enough teachers but that projects and works programmes go ahead.
Some schools in my constituency still have outside toilets. We can understand the disgust felt by parents when


youngsters have to leave the main school building to go to the toilet, particularly in bad weather. Despite the efforts made by the Inner London Education Authority to tackle the problems, there are still real needs in schools in many parts of London.
If there are savage cuts in expenditure on education, the Government will have to face the anger of London parents. When youngsters realise that the calibre of their schools is declining, that there are not as many teachers and that there are not the materials with which to follow their interests, they will decide that the school provides them with no encouragement. That will lead to a worsening of a problem that already exists in London—truancy. Anyone who has had any connection with the juvenile courts knows that most of the youngsters appearing there have a record of truancy. Once youngsters start to feel that they are attending a "sink" school and that the teachers and the local authority do not care much about them, they will start to rebel against the system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) referred to the report on black youngsters in London. The Tooting project, which caters for black youngsters in the Tooting-Balham-Wandsworth area, is in my constituency. At that project one meets youngsters in despair. For the most part they did not get on well at school and they left. Far too many children start playing truant from school, get involved in petty crime, and move on to larger-scale crime. When they are asked why they become involved in such activities, they invariably reply "No one was interested in me."
Therefore, the Government must urgently think again about the proposed education cuts. No doubt at the party conferences this year there will be a great deal of talk about education and of how the future of the country rests upon it. But if education spending is savagely cut, heaven help us in the years to come.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Before my hon. Friend moves on, perhaps to his concluding theme in an interesting speech, will he advert to the problems of the law centres in Wandsworth? I understand that they are under the axe of the local authority. Does he agree that, in spite of the criticisms levelled at them,

law centres provide a vital service to poor people who are unaware of their legal rights? Does he also agree that the need for them becomes even more imperative at a time of economic decline? Will he advert to the problems of Wandsworth, which may exemplify some of the problems in other areas held under the whiplash of Conservative councils in London?

Mr. Cox: I certainly take my hon. Friend's point, but in fairness I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South has touched upon this matter. There is great concern in Wandsworth. The demonstrations have been massive—that is no exaggeration. There have been public meetings, the attendance at which has been enough to make general election candidates green with envy. The people of Wandsworth are determined to fight to the bitter end the proposals to close down three centres and leave just one major centre in the borough. It would be unfair of me to deal with that subject at length because other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and I have one or two further comments to make.
At the council meeting in Wandsworth on Tuesday this week a motion was put down by the Conservative majority calling for the transfer of local schools presently run by the Inner London Education Authority to the Wandsworth borough council. Heaven help the children of Wandsworth if that should ever happen.
Education is a costly service. It begins with nursery education and continues to further and higher education. We have specialised services. I do not think that it will be disputed that the specialised services that ILEA has built up over many years are held in the highest esteem by educationists in the United Kingdom and throughout the world. It provides the services that only an authority of its size can provide. I have in mind provision for deaf children and for physically and mentally handicapped children. It is always sad when we speak to people who live within other education authorities and they tell us that their authority does not make that sort of provision.
If we are to continue to ensure that these services are available for youngsters, it will cost a great deal of money. There


is great concern in Wandsworth about reports that have appeared in the evening newspapers. It appears that the GLC, under Sir Horace Cutler, is actively involved in the attempted disintegration of the Inner London Education Authority and is actively arranging with Conservative-controlled authorities to seek to take over control of their local education services.
Is the Secretary of State for Education and Science really prepared to allow the transfer of education services in the boroughs to an authority that this week in its social services committtee report stated:
The Establishment and General Purposes Committee have … set a target … to save £195,000. We have considered how to achieve this sum and the majority of us (by 10 votes to 6)"—
that is, the 10 Conservative members voting in favour and the six Labour members voting against—
propose economies in the use of transport; the deletion of proposals to provide more work rooms for the elderly; the cessation of the provision of concessionary groceries; and a reduction in the provision of adaptations, telephones, play-buses and staffing"?
It continues:
Further savings will be necessary to achieve the target and we also propose to reduce expenditure incurred on adaptations to properties used by physically handicapped persons and in the number of telephones provided. … We also propose not to replace the two play-buses which are due for replacement.
I am proud whenever I hear parents say that they are interested in how their son or daughter is doing at school. Great credit must be given to anyone who says that. However, can any parent trust the education of their youngster to a council that is deliberately prepared to cut what I think many would say are essential services for the less fortunate of our citizens? I ask the Minister whether he, with his responsibility, is able to answer, because today we are going into recess for three months.
I believe that the parents of children at present attending schools in the borough of Wandsworth should not be left in a state of utter confusion. They are entitled to ask the Government what is their attitude on the proposed transfer of schooling in the borough of Wandsworth, at present run by the Inner London Education Authority, to the local council. Is it the intention of the Govern-

ment, before anything is proposed, to seek the views of the ILEA, of teachers and of parents? Are they to ask to be supplied by the local authority with the proposed costs, the kind of staffing that the authority would follow were it given control of its education services, and the kinds of services that would obviously be needed in the borough?
Very near to where I live, there is a school for handicapped children. When I go there I am always filled with admiration for the work done by the staff, but it costs a great deal of money. Therefore, I feel that we have a right to ask the Ministry to try to ensure that one of the Ministers at the Department of Education and Science will very quickly give his view of the proposal now made by the Wandsworth borough council.
It is to their credit that hon. Members on both sides of the House have attended this debate. Whatever differences we may have, we have shown our concern for the affairs of London and the people of London. I hope that the press will at least say that London Members stayed up throughout the night seeking to discuss the affairs of London. The people of London are entitled to expect that. Hon. Members know that, despite our efforts, very often we are attacked by the press and by outside organisations, alleging that London Members never try to do anything for London or the people of London. This morning we have shown our determination to ensure that London is discussed.
I hope that following the debate we shall unite as a London group, whatever may be our views, because I cannot honestly believe that, if I have housing problems in my constituency and a Conservative Member has housing problems in his constituency, they can vary very much. It is the duty of hon. Members on each side of the House to do everything they can to ensure that we have the opportunity to discuss, not in the early hours of the morning but at a far more appropriate time of the day, the real issues of London. They will not go away. We have a right to be given an allocation of time so that they can be properly discussed.

6.55 a.m.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: : I am sure that the


House has been moved by the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) and myself are lucky: we still have a Labour-controlled authority with which to work and to help provide for the people in our constituencies. I can only say how we commiserate with my hon. Friend in having to suffer such gormless creatures with whom he has to deal, who are doing so much damage to his constituents.
I agree with all those hon. Members who have argued that we should have some form of Question Time and Grand Committee for London in order to discuss these problems in detail. I took a step in this direction by writing to the Prime Minister, pointing out that since she was a London Member she would be aware that her London group and our London group share a common accord in that we believe that Loudon does not get its fair share of time. We comprise 92 Members, the largest group in the House. I put it to the right hon. Lady that, having regard to the changes that are now taking place in the procedures of the House, it ought to be possible to have a Grand Committee and Question Time for London.
She wrote a most helpful letter, pointing out the difficulties and the fact that at present we are setting up some fresh Select Committees. It was her view that we should perhaps wait a while until they got settled in before going any further. However, I thought it was a most helpful letter.
With the hon. Member for Ravens-bourne (Mr. Hunt) representing his group and myself representing my group, I hope that we shall be able to join together to see whether there are any other steps that we can take to ensure that London is given its rightful place in the affairs of this House.
I am a little sad that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment is with us, because he comes from Beeston, but we welcome him and do not want him to feel lonely among all us London men. Although my remarks will hardly touch on employment, I hope that he will be able to answer some of the questions that have been asked and assure us that all the relevant Departments will deal with the points that we have raised.
I start, as did so many of my hon. Friends, with housing. There is no doubt that housing in London is still an appalling problem. In the London borough of Hackney there are still 10,000 families on the waiting list. The council has done a remarkable job in trying to provide homes. In an intervention earlier, I pointed out that I am advised that, as from October, Hackney will receive no further nominations from the GLC. That is an absolute scandal. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central and I will be holding our surgeries, and we shall have many people arguing that they ought to be given accommodation that is within the confines of the GLC. We shall have to tell them—and it is no satisfaction to us to do so—that, because of the behaviour of the Tory GLC, this will not be possible. That is nothing short of a scandal.
Talking of scandals, I should like to discuss the action of the Secretary of State for the Environment. I expected him to be here and did not send him a letter. Since we are discussing housing, one would have expected the right hon. Gentleman to be present to discuss it with us. His Department and he in particular are fully aware of the problems that we are facing in Hackney, and how we are struggling desperately to satisfy the housing needs of our area.
Of the many needs that Hackney must cater for, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the problem of housing the elderly is of prime importance. In fact, I notice that in a speech that he made to a housing association yesterday, he referred to the increasing concern for the special needs of groups such as the elderly and added that they
will become the cornerstone of our housing policy".
I want to examine that point in some detail. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had Hackney in mind when he made that statement. He knows that in Hackney we have a big problem of rehousing elderly people, particularly in sheltered housing. The hon. Member for Ravens-bourne said that we should provide purpose-built sheltered accommodation. Hackney is trying desperately to do just that.
To rehouse elderly people, it is necessary to have the site correctly situated for


the shops, with no hills, and so on. Hackney found such a site, but had a struggle with a firm of speculators which also sought the site. Finally, after a great deal of hassle, the council could solve the problem only because of what it identified as the primary need. In that it was supported by the Secretary of State's statement that providing sheltered accommodation for the elderly was the most important issue, as against the speculators who were putting the site together in order to sell it off to developers.
Therefore, the council put a compulsory purchase order on the site and a public inquiry was held. At that inquiry all the arguments were adduced. The inspector rightly dealt with the matter in great detail. His report ran to many pages. He pointed out that, as he saw it, Hackney's problems were real. He adumbrated all the facts about the case—the 10,000 families on the waiting list, the fact that only 5 per cent. of the elderly who should have been housed were being housed.
The inspector said in his conclusions that he would recommend to the Secretary of State that the compulsory purchase order should be confirmed. He said:
My overall conclusions on the order are that the council have established that they have a need for sheltered accommodation in the area which cannot be met by existing accommodation or accommodation at present being built.
That was totally in accord with what the Secretary of State had said. There could not have been two more similar statements. The inspector, who had had the opportunity to examine all the facts, and the Secretary of State, who knows Hackney so well, adduced the same arguments.
The House will therefore be surprised to learn that when the Secretary of State made his decision he said:
It is also accepted that the Council have a need for more sheltered housing, part of which could be satisfied by their redevelopment of this site
but also said in the final paragraph:
In the light of the Government's policy that the growth of home ownership should be encouraged, the Secretary of State has concluded that the objectors' proposal, for which planning permission has been granted, should be allowed to proceed. He has decided, therefore, not to confirm the order, in dissent from the Inspector's recommendation.
What a scandal that the right hon. Gentleman could stand up in public and

pretend that he understood the problem, saying that everybody should provide sheltered accommodation! It is sheer dishonesty, whichever way one looks at it, and I demand the right hon. Gentleman's resignation. It is hypocrisy of the first order. I have never liked the right hon. Gentleman. There was a time when, some years ago, he misled me with an untruth in Standing Committee. He finally had to apologise at the Dispatch Box. That was an unnecessary exercise.
Here the right hon. Gentleman is again on exactly the same issue. Of course, he was not to know that I would have the opportunity today to raise the matter in the House. He took a directly opposite view, making it impossible for the London borough of Hackney to provide the accommodation that he had already said was vital. The hon. Member for Ravensbourne intervened earlier to point out that that is what we ought to do.
I hope that this House will demand from the Secretary of State for the Environment an explanation of this extraordinary conduct, which I believe can be satisfied only by his resignation from his high office. This is scandalous behaviour. One begins to suspect that the Government do not care very much about what is happening.
I then began to get interested in the speculators. When the Secretary of State behaves in that manner, one begins to wonder who the speculators are. Some interesting things are revealed. We begin to see who they are, the number of subsidiary companies and the bits and pieces. For the information of the House, may I say that I have been in touch with the directors of this organisation.
Another interesting feature is that I find the speculators are all round my constituency buying up bits of land. I received a tragic letter written on behalf of a constituent of mine, a Mrs. Koopman, of 27 Skipworth Road. She is over 70 and has lived in the constituency for 32 years. In the letter written on her behalf she says that she thinks that I am an extremely good Member of Parliament. I place that on the record. It is said that she suffers very much from phlebitis and arthritis of both legs. The letter says:
to gain access to her accommodation she has to climb two sets of stairs, thus causing her considerable pain. The decorative order of her flat is appalling. Paper, both wall and ceiling,


hangs down, due to the dampness and old age of the surfaces they cover. Plumbing is of a most primitive nature, consisting of a toilet and only cold water. Cooking was carried out on a two-burner electric stove which broke down, beyond repair, at the beginning of April. A week later her electric wiring became faulty and began to smoke.
This is an old lady of 70.
The landlord"—
and this is an interesting commentary on our time—
is the Sir John Cass Educational Foundation. It refused to repair or rewire because of the cost. From then on she has only survived due to her hardy nature and good will of her neighbours.
The electricity was cut off because of the danger of fire.
The House will not be surprised to know that the current owners of this property are none other than Fairview Estates, the friends of the Minister, who apparently can give the company other sites, which he adduces it can develop. Yet here is the company owning the property of this poor elderly lady, handicapped and suffering in this way, with no electricity for months. Yet she cannot be rehoused. It is an absolute scandal that the right hon. Gentleman has behaved in this way.
I am now asking the council to take care of this poor woman. It does not have the sheltered accommodation which she needs, because the Minister is stopping it from building. It is interesting that the speculator will have bought this property from the Sir John Cass Educational Foundation as an occupied property at a knock-down price. This is tantamount to "winkling", because if the company can make this poor old lady die before she is rehoused it will get the house empty at a much cheaper price.
This is a disgusting story. I am ashamed that I have to stand here and speak of it in this way, drawing the attention of the House to the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. John Hunt: Without knowing the facts, I should not want to defend the example given by the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that Hackney council would have the power to take action against the landlord in this matter if it wished to do so?

Mr. Brown: Yes. As soon as it came to my attention, I contacted the Hackney council's public health department and, as always, it was on the ball. It sent an inspector along and it is dealing with the matter for me.
The Government are already demanding that councils must cut back. We have insufficient public health inspectors—now called environmental health officers—because recruitment is frozen. How can we look after the Mrs. Koopmans of this world if we do not have sufficient environmental health officers to carry out the work? I have always regarded the Secretary of State for the Environment as a bit of a "bovver boy", but his behaviour in this matter has been outrageous.
Let us consider the claim of home ownership. Some Conservative Members have referred to this matter. I am and always have been in favour of home ownership. It is important to encourage people to purchase their own homes, to take care of them and to enjoy them.
In the Queen's Speech there was a reference to the Government's intention to assist with home ownership. They argued that it was the kernel of their policy. The Secretary of State for the Environment, when he addressed the House during the debate on the Queen's Speech, did not hold back at all. He embellished the whole thing. He told us that he was a proponent of the argument about home ownership. He was going to give people the opportunity to buy their flats and houses at knock-down prices. He could not get the price too low.
Later I put down a question to the right hon. Gentleman. I pointed out that I was partly in favour of home ownership and asked whether my constituents, some of whom had been in rented properties for 20 to 30 years, would be permitted to purchase those properties at knock-down or any prices, because they were owned by the Crown Estate Office.
First, the Secretary of State did not want to answer that question, so he shuffled it off to the Treasury. The Treasury then gave me an answer which bore no relationship to the question. So we have a new situation: we are in favour of home ownership for everybody,


except in some cases. Why are my constituents considered to be different? If home ownership is the Government's great argument, why do they cavil at my constituents being permitted to buy their homes? After some time I was given a crumb of comfort. The Government pointed out that the Crown Estate Office was selling some of its properties in Regents Park. That was of no great assistance to me.
Earlier I referred to Fairview Estates. I should have referred to the types of properties that company is to be given permission to erect in a working-class area which has just about every problem there is. The price of a two-room flat—not two bedrooms; one bedroom—is £11,895 at 1977 prices. The price of a three-room flat—a two-bedroom property—is £14,195 at 1977 prices. We know that property has escalated in price. That is the type of property to be erected on that site in place of sheltered accommodation for 30 or 40 elderly people in my constituency.
On the one hand, we have that attitude and, on the other, we have the great issue of a property-owning democracy and making it easier for people everywhere, except in Hackney, South and Shoreditch, to buy their homes at the lowest possible price. The GLC stops them moving, the Minister stops the council building and the Government say that my constituents cannot buy the houses in which they live. The people of Hackney, South and Shoreditch want to know what the Government are up to.
I trust that I shall have an answer from the Minister. He is an Under-Secretary in the Department of Employment, but I am concerned about the policies of the Government of which he is a member. I demand from him the answers to the matters that I have raised. They are political and involve his judgment. They do not need to be referred to any particular Department. He is a member of the Administration and must be called to task to justify the hypocrisy of this Government.
Another important matter in my constituency that I have raised many times in the House is transport. My constituents and I are being hassled by heavy lorries. They are coming through at a rate of knots and in large numbers. It

is a GLC responsibility because the lorries are using a GLC road, but the council appears to have no means of communication except with the press. It seems to have given up going through the chairmen and members of committees. That system does not seem to work any longer.
Graham Road, in my constituency, is a disgrace. I concede that it is only part of the whole picture. My hon. Friends from Islington and other constituencies through to the M1 are all suffering, but I refer only to the problem in my area, where a man was killed by a juggernaut a couple of weeks ago. These lorries ought not to be coming through my constituency. They do no work there and they do not stop there: they just come through.
The number of lorries has increased in recent months, and when I tried to find out why I discovered a conspiracy between the GLC and the City of London to ensure that no lorries of more than three tons are allowed into the City unless they have business there. Consequently, they go through my constituency, which is in juxtaposition to the City. In addition, the GLC and the corporation have decided, spuriously in my opinion, that Tower bridge has been so badly maintained by the corporation that it is a danger and heavy lorries can no longer use the bridge. The result is that every one of those detouring lorries is using Graham Road.
When I tried to find out what consultations had taken place with Hackney borough council before the decision was taken to close the bridge, the answer was "Go suck a lemon." There was no discussion. It was a conspiracy between the Tory GLC and the Tory City corporation to get out of their difficulties. They ignore relationships with the people next door. It is outrageous.
Thinking that the Minister of Transport would understand these matters and that if the GLC will not operate as a local government unit as we have always expected the Minister could use his influence to get Hackney council and the GLC together to discuss the problem and to save lives, I asked the right hon. Gentleman to arrange a meeting between the authorities. We have already lost one life and had two others damaged in the past three months.
The Minister said that it was nothing to do with him and was a matter for the GLC. No doubt he knows the attitude of the GLC because he did not even offer to talk to his friends there. Presumably he has no lines of communication either.
Therefore, I am left trying to help my constituents whose cause of complaint comes directly within the responsibility of the GLC and the City corporation, which took this action to protect themselves. Let us always remember that the total population of the City, in juxtaposition to my constituency, is about 4,000. Yet the corporation stopped the lorries going there, 24 hours a day, and certainly all night. The corporation has its own Private Popski's army to make sure of this. Now the corporation has closed the bridge to these lorries to make sure that this army of juggernauts comes through my constituency, 24 hours a day.
I hope that the Minister will answer me this morning. Again, it is public policy. Whilst I accept that the Minister's preferment is for employment, nevertheless it is Conservative policy that I am challenging. He should be competent to answer the House and tell me why he believes that this lack of consultation should be permitted to continue.
Fundamentally, what we see in the illustrations I offer is complete lack of interest in people. We have lost that. Whether we are talking about housing, education or employment, the Conservatives do not want to talk about people. The Conservative Government do not care about people.
I spent all day yesterday on one of the issues. The health authorities have been told that they must cut back on their expenditure. The result is that patients are suffering. But the one word that never passes the Government's lips is "patient". We are told that it is an economic matter; it is financial, problematical, difficult, and these are times of economy. We have heard all the arguments except the one word, the human issue, "people".
The illustrations that I have offered the House tend to support what I have long suspected, namely, that if the Conservatives were returned to government the people of this country would be in for a very bad time indeed—as they are experiencing now.
I join with those of my hon. Friends who have been with me in fighting to get the dispersal policy stopped, although my right hon. Friends instituted it some years ago. Like others, I was delighted last night to hear from the Minister of State, Civil Service Department that the dispersal policy was being stopped and that the taking away of London's lifeblood was to cease. I am so pleased that, at long last, we are seeing a move in this sphere where the interests of people are being put before the interests of simply dreaming up an idea which has no relationship to the humanities of life and going ahead with it as though people did not matter.
Finally, I refer briefly to the need to ensure that we as Members of Parliament are kept informed of what the responses will be to actions taken by the Government. I illustrate the issue of value added tax. I have raised this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I asked a question, because in my constituency it has been decided to close some hospitals. I was not satisfied that the case had been made. Indeed, the Minister for Health, most kindly and with his usual courtesy, accompanied me to my constituency yesterday to look at the problem. I say no more about that because the Minister is examining the matter. I pay tribute to him for the manner in which he dealt with me yesterday.
However, what I was not aware of when the Chancellor came to the Dispatch Box and announced the increase in VAT from 8 to 15 per cent., but of which he must have had knowledge, was that the regional health authority covering my area will now have to pay between £3½ million and £4 million extra this year out of its existing revenue. At the same time, it is proposing to close two hospitals in my constituency to save £1½ million that it claims it is overspending.
The House has the right to expect Ministers, in putting forward proposals for changing financial arrangements, to be honest. Hon. Gentlemen cheered wildly when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he was increasing VAT from 8 to 15 per cent. Those cries of joy would have been somewhat muted had they known that the health authorities in their areas would


have to pay £3½ million to £4 million this year and £4½ million or more next from existing revenue to cover those increases. I asked the Chancellor whether he would cover it, and he said "No". I also asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, and he said "No". It seems that an ordinary, reasonable health authority will have to pay about £12 million for the Chancellor's various antics.
I do not believe that the House was aware of those facts. If one had to issue a report on the first three months in office of this Government, it would read "This boy wants his backside smacking pretty hard. He is a bit of a cheat".

7.26 a.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has with characteristic vigour and relevance asked the Minister some important probing questions about issues affecting the London borough of Hackney, but they also relate to inner city problems generally. His powerful advocacy is borne out by the experience to which he alluded, which is one that I share, of a weekly surgery where 50 or 60 people come to see us about problems, most of which have little possibility of solution as long as we have a Greater London Council motivated by an extreme form of doctrinaire policy comparable to that of the Government.
It is appalling that we should have an abdication of responsibility for housing on the part of the Greater London Council at a time when the pressures on our constituents are worse than they have ever been. The policy of sale is irrelevant to people living in the inner London area. It makes their prospects of being rehoused more remote, at least as far as the GLC is concerned.
I wish to refer first to the problems affecting the partnership scheme. We have had visits from the Under-Secretary—hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester)—and the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who has responsibilities within the Department of the Environment and who, I believe, genuinely recognises some of our problems. He himself represents an area that is afflicted by many of them.
I worry deeply about the present consideration which the Government purport to be giving to the inner city partnership schemes. Are those schemes in jeopardy? What is the purpose of their reconsideration? Are we simply going through rather kindly conversations with the local authorities concerned, in particular Hackney and Islington? Is it, at the end of the day, simply to be a charade? Or are the Government genuinely looking at ways of promoting the schemes? Are they trying to build them up?
It would be completely out of character if the answer to that last question was in the affirmative after the exercises of the last three months which my hon. Friend has, in a brilliant resum£, recapitulated. We are told that the Government are genuinely attached to the principle. But we are not only concerned about principles; we are also concerned about the realities. We are concerned about the fact that, as a result of the partnership scheme that is being developed in Hackney and Islington, new hope is being offered to these areas, with the prospect of bringing new industry in to revitalise them.
The prospect, of course, must be accompanied by a sensible housing policy which will support it. However, there is very little sign of an understanding of that need on the part of the GLC.

Mr. Stevens: The hon. Gentleman refers to the need for housing to be responsive to the requirements of new industry. Is he saying that he approves of the principle of providing council accommodation for key workers from outside his borough?

Mr. Davis: Of coure there must be a measure of that—we understand that. What the Government are purporting to say is "Rely on the private landlords; stimulate them". To expect that of the private landlords in Hackney, with their legacy of neglect over the years, is to expect the greatest miracle since Moses struck the rock; it ain't gonna happen. The truth is that we need the local authorities to be helped, not to be hindered, in the provision of local authority accommodation; and the arguments about council house sales have little or no relevance to the problems of our people.
I return to my question about the inner city partnership schemes. What worries me is that I have heard it being said by Conservatives sotto voce "There are some things wrong with partnership schemes; there is too much bureaucracy." That is the standard answer to any question one poses today. One is almost as likely to get a response to that effect as when one talks about quangos. It is a knee-jerk reaction.
One has to have an element of bureaucracy—in the sense of an administration—in getting the partnership schemes off the ground. I feel that, underlying all this talk about attacking bureaucracy and pruning it, is a desire to assail the whole concept of the partnership schemes. Perhaps this will not be a frontal assault. Perhaps it will be a corrosive influence which will render the concept void over a period of time. Time will tell.
I remember a debate on the partnership scheme—I did not participate because I was then on the Treasury Bench—and hearing the hon. Member for Hampstead, now Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, saying that he did not believe that putting money into areas such as Hackney and Islington was necessarily the right response. Is that still his view? I do not know whether the hon. Member for Beeston is able to answer, but he is taking some part in this job of examining the partnership schemes, and I hope therefore that he will be able to. The hon. Gentleman ought to be fair with us. I hope that he will say whether the Government's policy in this respect, as in others, is to cut, cut and cut again. If he says that, I warn him that he is in for a lot of trouble. To cut off or even reduce this vital form of aid is to end all hope of resuscitation of the inner city area which I represent. It is to cut off its breathing apparatus.
The problems of the inner cities can be resolved only by a co-ordinated, planned attack by all the agencies working together—central Government, local government, the community itself, voluntary organisations and so on. That cannot be done without additional financial support. That was the theme of the Labour Government. It was their programme in action, and now we have a great many question marks over it.
As for housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shore-

ditch spoke of the extraordinary contrast between the Conservatives' policy of making it mandatory on the part of local authorities to sell and no parallel policy affecting private landlords. I remember the Minister for Housing and Construction getting into all sorts of terrible trouble when he made his baptismal appearance at the Dispatch Box and was asked that very question—" How do you answer this dichotomy?" To be fair to him, he was still wearing the badge "Running in, please pass", but he made an awful fool of himself, and Government supporters recognised that, too. The fact is that the two policies are incapable of reconciliation.
I take up the theme about which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch spoke and which he exemplified by referring to the case of Mrs. Koopman. There are thousands of Mrs. Koopmans in Hackney. Most of them do not come to see us in our surgeries because they cannot. Many are housebound. Many elderly people are imprisoned in great tower blocks, with lifts going out of action all the time. In these blocks, the standard of caretaking by the GLC is a scandal.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: It is nonexistent.

Mr. Davis: Parts for the repair of lifts are not available. The heating comes on in the summer and goes off in the winter. There is a failure to look after the elderly, who all too often find children getting out of control because there is no adequate caretaking. Children play ball outside their flats, and windows are broken. There is also a degree of vandalism. I do not say that this can be cured simply by having more caretakers and spending more money. I accept that. But some of the problems can be mitigated, and it is here that there is a further dereliction of responsibility on the part of the GLC.
On the question of the sale of council houses, one finds a policy that is offensive and obscene in an area like my constituency. This policy amounts to a vicious attack on public authority housing. The GLC says that it intends to cut out its responsibility for building new local authority developments. In my constituency there is a severe shortage of family houses. Many people are living


in overcrowded and rotten conditions. But the GLC insists on selling properties in Hackney. It says that it wants to encourage owner-occupation. But the intending purchaser is not asked whether he intends to live in the house. That is a strange omission. What it means is that the person who can pay most will get the property—a strange language of priorities.
The rest of the tenants, denied the opportunity of living in improved housing conditions, will be imprisoned in the worst housing. Purchasers will not be buying flats on the Kingsmead estate. So those tenants will be left in a type of housing that will be increasingly burdensome to maintain and whose rents will go up disproportionately. Tenants will be paying higher rents for lower standards. That is the essence of what will happen as a result of the policy of the GLC, stimulated and encouraged by this Government.
I should like to give an example of the relevance of the policy of selling houses in Hackney. There are a number of properties built for letting in Hassett Road. They remained empty for months because purchasers could not be found at a time when 10,000 people were on the housing list.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: There are 10,000 families.

Mr. Davis: I am sorry; I should have said 10,000 families.
Then the GLC built a fine estate called Sherry's Wharf. It abuts on the Kings-mead estate, where many decent families are trying to overcome immense housing problems. There is vandalism on the Kingsmead estate which leads to many problems; there is overcrowding, there are flats in decay; there are flats subject to extreme dampness. Abutting this estate are 143 beautiful houses, built for rent and to combat some of the problems to which I have referred. Now they are to be sold. The price is £30,000.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: That is a scandal.

Mr. Davis: The GLC has not come clean about that situation. The information had to be prised out. I attended a meeting held by the Kingsmead tenants' association a few weeks ago. To his credit, Mr. David Ashby, who deals with

these problems on behalf of the Greater London Council, came to the meeting. I was not, however, very impressed by his attitude, but he heard the representations that were made by the tenants at a well-attended meeting. He treated them, I thought, with a pomposity, an arrogance, an indifference, a contempt and a degree of irresponsibility that I have seldom experienced before.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Typical.

Mr. Davis: That powerful amalgam hardly impressed the tenants. Mr. Ashby said that an agreement had been reached in principle to sell the 143 properties in Sherry's Wharf, but he could not or would not reveal the price. Yet we know that to make the scheme viable they have to sell at £30,000, and it had to be prised out of his officials that that, indeed, was the probable price.
A price of £30,000 per house will not give much scope for rehousing tenants on the Kingsmead estate. What families living on that sort of estate, or, indeed, in Hackney as a whole, will be able to service a mortgage of £25,000, £28,000 or £29,000? Probably none—perhaps one or two, but it is very unlikely, to say the least.
As I said, there is no necessity for someone to be on the housing list to be considered as a buyer. The council will use estate agents to promote the sale. Is it not deeply offensive to use public money to enrich estate agents by flogging off properties which in all probability will not go to anyone living in Hackney? This will not solve the problems of the Mrs. Koopmans of this world.
At the end of this performance, David Ashby said "Having listened to what has been said, I shall go back to think about it again". He has not yet said what the result of the rethink has been. I suspect that it was a device to escape from a rather hot meeting which was giving him the sort of reception that he thoroughly deserved. The whole concept should never have been dreamed up in the first place.
It is an outrage that the idea was ever put forward. It is irrelevant to the needs of Hackney, and it is offensive to people like those living on the Kingsmead estate. It is a pathetic saga of the dereliction


of responsibility in this area of housing and in others by the Conservative-controlled GLC. It is an indictment which it will in due course have to answer, but I fear that, in the meantime, that council, in consort with this Government, will wreak terrible damage before it is brought to account by the electors.

7.47 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): I am sure that the House welcomes this opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate on the problems and opportunities of London. This subject attracted 22 signatures, with 12 participants, four hours of debate and speeches lasting up to 25 minutes. It says something for the constitution of hon. Members on both sides. I hope that they get their due reward in the early edition of the Evening Standard, even if some of their statements have been geared to that end in any case.
We miss the presence this year of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), whose interventions in last year's debate did much to enliven it. But, as has been said, the House has a substitute in his next-door neighbour—myself.
This is the first time that I have taken part in a London debate. One is conscious of the passion and fervour of London Members. The suggestion that there should be a London Question Time or even provision for London in the Committee structure is one on which the Leader of the House should take note of the comments of London Members.
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) made a characteristically reasoned and levelheaded speech. He said that hon. Members were looking not for a Minister from the Department of Employment but for my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who spoke in debates in previous years as the Opposition spokesman on London. In fairness, it should be said that a similar debate last year was answered by the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant), who had responsibilities similar to mine.
If hon. Members would prefer my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead to reply to a debate about London next

year, they must reword their motion and I shall be happy to encourage him to attend.
As I listened to the debate, I became conscious that employment, the peg on which the debate was hung, has been taken to cover a wide variety of topics. They have included unhappy personal problems. One can understand them, but one cannot say that they were created in the last 92 days. The topics have covered tourism, the resignation of the Secretary of State for the Environment, the exhibition centre, transport, housing, education—which is beyond the terms of the debate—the GLC, health, social services, law centres, local government, rate support grant and the responsibility I have for the Enfield borough council and the Wandsworth council. To reply to all those matters would tax my modest talents. It would tax the talents of many Ministers, to say nothing of the time that it would take to do those items justice.
It is right that these topics should he raised because the employment level depends on a multitude of economic and social factors. One cannot talk of employment and unemployment as isolated phenomena. I hope that hon. Members will understand if I do not attempt to answer all their questions now. I shall ensure that these matters are brought to the attention of my colleagues.
London is often seen in other parts of the country as a city flowing with milk and honey, where such problems as exist cannot be truly serious. I am sure, from what I have heard in the last four hours, that few hon. Members who spoke in the debate agree with that notion. Nor do I. I cannot claim that London is my home base, although I have had a flat here for five days a week for the past five years. That probably does not give me parentage yet. No one who has taken a trip round Docklands, as I did a few weeks ago, could still believe that London has no problems.
The hon Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) asked about the Jubilee line and the Docklands strategy. With resources severely limited, and likely to remain so in the immediate future, the Minister of Transport has asked the Greater London Council to accept a pause


in the planning of the extension of the Jubilee line until the options can be examined.
The Government intend that this should be a concentrated and effective review of all the transport options—whether by road or rail—which could be relevant to an agreed strategy for the regeneration of Docklands.
I emphasise that the Government remain firmly committed to the need to get the right transport links for the area. It is essential that plans should be related realistically to resources and that priorities and programmes for the regeneration of Docklands are examined together so that the most effective and economic means of achieving agreed ends are arrived at.
I was surprised at the suggestion that the Jubilee line should have preference over road improvements in Docklands. Surely one of the highest priorities for industrial and commercial development in Docklands must be to ease access for goods. A Tube line would hardly do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington also asked about a Channel road and rail link. I share his view and I hope that in his multi-role he will take every opportunity to promote that in Europe and here.
Let me return to the overall picture of employment in London. A starting point is the official statistics which, it must be said, reveal a relatively buoyant London economy. In July overall unemployment in Greater London stood at 3·7 per cent., a rate slightly below that for the South-East region and well below the national average, which stood at 5·9 per cent. But, as many hon. Members have pointed out, we should not write off London's employment prospects from a casual glance at the rates—the figures need to be probed a bit more.
First, we should not ignore the scale of the human problem represented by those simple rates, because 3·7 per cent. unemployment in London is over 140.000 people.

Mr. Stevens: The figure for London as whole is quite correct, although it is fair to say that in Fulham, for instance, registered male unemployment is practically 10 per cent. Fulham, like many other

boroughs, is way above the figure that my hon. Friend has quoted.

Mr. Lester: I take that point on board.
May I point out to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who said that we did not care about people, that one of the first things I have tried to do is to translate a cold statistic—3·7 per cent.—into a move meaningful one of 140,000 people. We are conscious that that is what the figures mean. It is a large number by any standards, and is very nearly as many unemployed as there are in the entire West Midlands region. London's unemployed represent over 10 per cent. of all those unemployed in Great Britain.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The hon. Gentleman's Department was engaged in an investigation with the intelligence branch of the GLC to discover why the official statistics are so different from the GLC figures. Is there any progress to report in that work?

Mr. Lester: I am not aware of any progress, but I shall look into the matter.
Second, we must bear in mind what has been happening to jobs in London. Between 1971 and 1976—the latest date for which we have figures—the number of employees in employment in London fell by 230,000, a decline of nearly 6 per cent. Within that total employment manufacturing fell by over 24 per cent. So we see a net migration of employment from London superimposed on the national trend of a shift from manufacturing to service industry. While we may argue over whether it is right to see a continued emigration of people and jobs from London, it is clear that shifts of this magnitude in the structure of employment can of themselves give rise to strains in the London economy.
This leads me to speak of regional policy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) touched on and which London has understandably criticised for many years. In the Government's view, it makes both economic and social sense to continue a regional policy whereby aid is given to those parts of the country where the need is greatest. But what we have seen over the years is the expansion of the definition of need to a point where approaching half of the


country is in receipt of some form of special incentive. This has led to quite justifiable complaints from London and other parts of the country which were not so favoured that they were being asked to sacrifice investment to areas which were in many cases little worse off than the non-assisted areas, and in some cases demonstrably better off than the sort of figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens). The recent announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on regional policy has cleared much of this ground. The assisted areas, once the changes he has announced take effect will cover only some 25 per cent. of the country—the areas to which it is reasonable for national priority to be given. At the same time, we have lifted some of the restrictions which have so often seemed petty and unreasonable to London. I refer here to the restrictions on office development permits which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is bringing to an end; the so-called Government "health warning" on advertisements promoting industrial development in London which my right hon. Friend has also abolished; and the raising of the industrial development certificate exemption limits to 50,000 sq. ft. announced recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) seemed to be rather pessimistic that this will have any effect. I can assure him that the deputations that I have seen from the North-West and the North-East have rammed home to us that they think that it will have a profound effect on their areas. We are anxious that that should not be so. So the Government have indirectly helped London by making sure that the assisted areas make sense and by lifting unnecessary restrictions. However, I shall not pretend that this is some magic cure for London's employment problems because the difficulties go much deeper than any governmental magic wands can reach.
What are the difficulties? Let us return to the figures. Just as the simple 3·7 per cent. unemployment rate disguised the scale of London's employment problems and the movement of jobs, so it disguises the fact that much of London's unemployment is concen-

trated in certain areas. Here I refer particularly to the inner city, to which the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) made reference. In the inner city, as we have all come to realise, unemployment is but one of a multitude of ills that the populace faces. Others are dereliction, vandalism and a poor environment. The danger is of these problems feeding in on themselves and of inner city ghettos of poverty forming.
The Government are very conscious of the real inner city problem. We are reviewing, with a genuinely open mind, the policy established by Labour, and we wish to consider all the options, however radical or imaginative they may be My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his ministerial colleagues have been meeting all the inner city partnerships to take the views of the authorities involved—the process is still going on. I cannot, of course, anticipate the conclusions of my right hon. Friend, but let me make some preliminary observations.
Above all we must avoid reaching the state where the inner cities become permanently subsidised ghettos of deprived and disadvantaged people. We have to reach a situation where the leaders of communities and commerce—the small business men—will wish to return to live and work in the inner city. This will not be done merely by dishing out subsidies and setting up committees, which too often was the approach of the previous Administration.
We must ask why so many of London's unemployed and disadvantaged live in the inner city, often only a stone's throw from major centres of employment and prosperity such as the City and the West End. The answer must be, in part at least, that the poor tend to live where no one else wants to. We have seen the migration from the inner areas of many who have made their way in life—those, for example, who are moving into owner-occupation. One of the major aims must be to offer a decent life—and a chance of buying a house in the inner city—to such people, otherwise there will be little hope for those who remain. It is necessary only to see the improvements made in homes that people have bought and made into their own individual homes to recognise and support that policy.
Reference has been made to high-rise flats. Wherever they have been built there is great difficulty getting people to live in them happily. The policy changes that were introduced stemmed from the pressure that was applied by Labour Governments, by means of grants and circulars, to encourage that sort of development. There was Government involvement. Local authorities were forced in many ways to construct what we now recognise are major sociological problems. I do not try to minimise the difficulties that they have caused.
We need new ideas, and I am happy to think that in the debate many of the new ideas to solve the problems to which I have referred have come from my hon. Friends. I welcome many of the suggestions that have been made and we shall take them into account.
Some hon. Members have referred to mobility and housing. The Department regards that as a critical factor. I am sure that all hon. Members will admit that few councils in London or elsewhere are willing to provide housing for people moving in for employment reasons. I appreciate that there are some honourable exceptions, and I understand that Enfield is one of them.
Many Labour Members have made great play of expenditure cuts and gloomy prognostications. However, let us remember what their policies have done for London. Their five years of office were full of controls and subsidies. Unemployment in London rose from 58,500 in March 1974 to over 143,000 in March 1979—an increase of very nearly 150 per cent. If that is an example of the sort of plans that Labour Members are putting forward, no one can be surprised that the people of London have voted now for a different approach. We all believe in high standards of public service, but we have to create the means first before we can have them. They are not there just as of right when the economy cannot sustain them.
I return to the basic statistics of London, for a little more probing reveals another important—possibly the most important—observation. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham touched on this in what I thought was a very constructive and balanced speech. Last month there were over 58,000 vacancies notified

to employment offices in the London area. A survey undertaken in 1977 showed that in the South-East only about 35 per cent. of unfilled vacancies were notified to employment offices. Applying this proportion to London would suggest that there may be about 160,000 vacancies in all at the present time. This, of course, is only a rough and ready calculation, but there is no reason to doubt that it reveals the rough order of magnitude.
In London, therefore, we are talking about a labour market in which the number of unemployed more or less equals the number of vacancies. But if this is equilibrium, it is equilibrium at a very high—an unacceptably high—level of both unemployment and vacancies. It vividly illustrates what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech about the problems of the economy being due to the failures on the supply side.
The mismatch revealed by these figures is hard to explain. The reasons are undoubtedly numerous, and I doubt whether anyone has yet come up with a totally convincing explanation. Partly, no doubt, we have a position in which the vacancies are in skills and occupations for which those who are unemployed are not suited. I have already noted the large changes in the structure of unemployment in London.
Some hon. Members have suggested that the answer to this must be that the Government should undertake a massive increase in training. This is quite absurd. Although it is right that there should be some public provision for individuals who wish to retrain, in no way can Government training be a substitute for that performed by employers. It is far better that people are trained by the firm that is to employ them. If the Government were vastly to increase their training provision, it would result in worse training and very probably have no effect on the total amount of training done, since employers would undoubtedly cut back on their efforts. No, the approach must surely be to encourage employers to fulfil their own training needs and to provide them with the incentive to do this.
But we must also ask why people are reluctant to train and update their skills. I believe that the rigid pay policies of


the past few years have had much to do with this. Their effect was to make mobility between firms and occupations less and less attractive to people. One must also mention excessively high levels of individual taxation. This must reduce the incentive to train for, and travel to, jobs. Pay policies and taxation have had a stultifying effect on London's work force, in the same way as excessive controls and restrictions have held back growth in London's firms. The Government's policies of reducing taxation, increasing incentives and cutting down unnecessary controls must mean a healthier economy for London in the future, as for the country as a whole.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I draw the Minister's attention to the Bolton report on small firms, which specifically discussed this matter and did not come to that conclusion.

Mr. Lester: We have the Bolton report on our desks. It is permanently in our Department. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, our whole philosophy is based on the growth of small businesses and the need to encourage them. But it is true that everything that has been suggested to us by small businesses in our five years in Opposition, as to the things which have restricted their growth, is now being tackled by the Government. I am sure, as I have just said, that we shall see a healthier future economy for London and for the country as a whole. In the years to come our record will prove it.

COUNCIL HOUSING (ENERGY SAVING AND INSULATION)

8.10 a.m.

Mr. James Hill: It is a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to be called at 8.10 in the morning. This is perhaps a fairly dry subject but nevertheless one that is of great importance to the council tenants of this country. I am sure that all local authorities will have had widespread experience in the correcting of condensation and mould growth in their council properties.
Many remedies have been employed, but still the problems persist. At this point I might say that Southampton as a housing authority has had an excellent

record over the years, under both Labour and Conservative control. Naturally, Southampton is as concerned as any major urban conurbation that it tackles these problems with intensity and necessary finance. The reason for the debate is perhaps to encourage my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to look kindly upon my local authority.
The main factor is that there has been a complete change in domestic lifestyles in this country. More women now go out to work, the dwellings are left empty all day, the heating is switched off completely, and the end result is a concentration of moisture-producing activities as and when the family congregates in the evening. Baths, cooking and the washing and drying of clothes all take place at a time when the fabric of the dwelling is at its coldest. Of course, the change from expensive heating to inexpensive heating such as paraffin stoves will result in a great mass of water vapour. I know that most hon. Members present know that the burning of a gallon of paraffin will create just over a gallon of water vapour in the air.
Southampton was fortunate to be given a free survey of four properties by a firm that specialises in this very obscure professional treatment, one of the foremost experts in this area, namely Condensation and Mould Treatments Ltd. I should like to read some of the conditions that it found, without naming the addresses of the properties:
Black fungal growth is widespread. It is to be found on walls and on ceilings, is particularly severe in all corners and junctions and is even rampant in food cupboards and wardrobes. The areas worst affected are kitchens, bathrooms, bedrooms and walls Condensation is streaming down the walls. It is internally induced since there are no obvious signs of damp penetration.
There is considerable washing and drying of clothes. Dampness is everywhere. On walls and ceilings, in sheets, mattresses, pillows and on clothing and carpets. All walls—particularly external—are severely affected by damp. Beds have had to be pulled away from the walls becaue of the damp—in two incidences, bedrooms are completely unusable.
In respect of furnishings and clothing, the survey states:
Severely infected by mould which is clearly visible on mattresses, carpets, shoes and curtains. Tenants informed us—and in the existing conditions we are quite prepared to accept their word—that many clothes have had to be thrown away.


It continues:
Almost everywhere a musty damp smell pervades the dwelling, and is particularly severe in the bedrooms. We found incidences of wallpaper peeling. In some cases, several layers of wallpaper are superimposed one over the other, with mould growing in between the layers. We found incidences of mould-devouring insects running about on the walls of the kitchen. In three of the dwellings there are young children. The occupants told us that their children suffer from chest complaints. In the existing conditions this is quite inevitable—indeed almost certain. They are living and sleeping in damp conditions and are constantly inhaling mould spores due to the heavy airborne contamination.
That is perhaps an indictment of council properties which is a phenomenon of the age. It goes almost unnoticed by the House simply because the debates here repeat it time and time again, until the tragedy is almost completely lost sight of.
What I might call the long title of this debate is "Energy conservation, insulation and the eradication of condensation and mould in council-owned properties". That will be no new problem to councillors and Members of Parliament. Every hon. Member who has a constituency with a vast number of council flats and houses knows how often his advice service is packed with constituents conveying problems of the cost of energy, the lack of insulation, the condensation running down walls and black mould growing on wallpaper and ceilings.
It was only on 9 March that a similar debate was originated by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), who was nostalgic for the Coronation Streets which have now disappeared. He was perhaps unduly oppressive when he blamed the architects of the early 1950s who with new materials designed prefabricated units, all without fireplaces and chimneys. But he was correct to point out that the magazine Building Design had estimated that £200 million-worth of remedial work was needed on council houses less than 30 years old. The hon. Gentleman's solutions were straightforward—increase the housing cost yardstick of each new unit by £400 and spend £7 million in Salford in one year to correct those houses that were already occupied.
Perhaps in 1978 Southampton did not have the facility of being able to reach the ear of the Secretary of State, the right

hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). Of the housing investment allocation at that time for block 1 expenditure, which was about £5½ million, only £120,000 was for energy conservation. The objective was to provide basic insulation in all public sector dwellings by 31 March 1988. As the 1978–79 allocation would be sufficient only to insulate between 960 and 1,200 dwellings, and the city of Southampton has 24,000 council dwellings, it became clear that the 10-year programme was unrealistic and covered only loft insulation, draught stripping and the lagging of water pipes.
No dwellings built in Southampton before 1961 had any loft insulation. Those constructed between 1961 and 1971 had only 1 in. in depth of loft insulation. Those built between 1971 and 1976 had 2 in. Many flat-roofed dwellings were unable to be insulated within the cash limits. It became clear that energy conservation and insulation were in a very primitive stage.
The position became extremely serious when electricity charges began to increase between 1975 and 1978. Many of the housing units about which I am concerned were all-electric, with underfloor heating, under the tenants' control. Statistics in Southampton showed that those in 20 per cent. of the houses to which I shall refer were not making full use of the heating system. Even worse, 30 per cent. were not using it at all.
In Southampton there are 2,000-plus council houses with electric underfloor heating, with loft insulation ranging in depth from 2 in to nil, with no cavity fill insulation and no double glazing to windows ranging from floor to ceiling. As the Under-Secretary can imagine, the predominant complaint from the tenants concerned the high running costs, result-in many of the poorer families switching off all heating and resorting to alternative forms of fuel and appliances, such as paraffin or flueless gas heaters. This led, almost immediately, to serious condensation and mould problems.
The officers of the Southampton housing department investigated various methods of reducing the heating running costs. I put on record the full co-operation received from the Southern electricity board, which went so far as to share the


costs of completely insulating 12 houses to demonstrate the effectiveness of cavity insulation, both foam and rockwall.
In November 1978 it was agreed to insulate to the following standards 38 houses, 14 in foam, 18 with rockwall cavity insulation and six with double glazing or dry lining. In respect of the latter—this is one of the most serious of local authorities' problems—it should be noted that 722 of the total number were houses with electric underfloor heating of non-traditional construction and, therefore, with solid walls with no cavities. It was also agreed, in these 38 experimental houses, to increase the insulation of the roof space by means of a 75 mm fibreglass quilt.
A full monitoring exercise by the Southern electricity board was initiated on the 12 properties which had tenants who used their underfloor heating. The housing department went to the expense of purchasing 12 items of measuring equipment—one for each house. The results showed that the cavity insulation and the additional 75 mm fibreglass quilt in the roof space produced savings of approximately 25 per cent. If the properties change from tariff A to tariff F at no charge, the savings amount to 36 per cent. Double glazing and additional roof insulation, as expected, showed a lower saving of 10 per cent. This on tariff Fx was increased to show a saving of 23 per cent. Double glazing is a very expensive way of creating insulated surfaces.
The tariff Fx was found to be unsatisfactory for the larger families, due to the off-peak water heating. The properties monitored were eight end-terrace, three mid-terrace and one was a stepped mid-terrace All achieved the design temperature when occupied of 65 deg. F. in the living area and 55 deg. F. in the circulation areas. Only, surprisingly enough, 100 tenants out of over 2,000 chose to transfer to the Fx tariff, which would have provided them with a saving of about 15 per cent. at no charge to the tenant.
During the Southern electricity board experiment the solid fuel advisory service asked permission to convert one house to solid fuel. This was agreed to. The full installation comprised an attractive stove which served radiators on the

ground floor. The prefabricated flue extended from the living room through to the rear bedroom and through the rear roof space and out through the roof.
The total cost of providing the system amounted to £795 and the running costs were 2½ tons of solid fuel at a cost of £175 per annum. The temperatures were in excess of 70 deg. in the winter and the tenants were extremely pleased by the results. If we were to do that to each property and if we were to receive no assistance from the Government, it would mean an increase in the weekly rent of £1·71.
About this time the Southern gas board also wished to participate in the experimentation scheme. It came in late and, indeed, did not complete its installation until June 1979, but the heating costs are estimated at £131 per annum. The cost of the installation to Parker Morris standard was £1,002. Therefore, without any assistance at all, that would mean an increase in the weekly rent of £2·15.
It is fairly obvious now that the cost of the full insulation of the property is of paramount importance. To give my hon. Friend some examples, the fibreglass quilt was £55 per house, the foam cavity fill was £108, the rockwall cavity insulation was £140, the insulation of nontraditional properties was £275 and, as I said earlier, without drying lining, the only way to insulate is with double glazing. Therefore, the average estimated cost of insulation is between £213 and £234 per property, and that means an increase in the weekly rent of the equivalent of 15p to 17p.
The great difficulty has always been the availability of funds. Southampton's capital estimates for the current financial year include £110,000 for works to properties with underfloor heating sysems. We are hoping in 1980–81 and 1981–82 for a further £400,000, for which a request has been made, to bring the overall total to £510,000.
The Department of the Environment has recently informed the Southampton council of its intention to review housing capital allocations in the light of these problems in all-electric houses with such great energy losses. Yesterday's news of another electricity charge increase of 8 per cent. will not help the situation.
The Labour Government, in circular 66/78 and domestic energy note No. 3, recommended that a heating system change should be considered only as a last resort. I venture to surmise that would be the attitude of the Minister.
The figures for conversions are quite high. Complete gas conversion of 2,000-plus houses would cost about £2·2 million. Solid fuel conversion of the same number of houses would cost £1·6 million. Therefore, realistically that leaves only a comprehensive insulation programme with an energy saving of 30 per cent. at a cost of £510,000.
I should like to give my hon. Friend some interesting statistics for his Department. Average weekly running costs of underfloor heating during winter work out as follows: tariff A with no insulation £6 per week; tariff A with insulation £4.05 per week; tariff Fx with no insulation £4·32 per week; tariff Fx with double glazing £3·87 per week; tariff Fx with cavity insulation £3·25 per week.
Those are, of course, normal unrestricted electricity consumption costs of about £110 a year. Water heating costs, at an unrestricted tariff of about £95 a year, are on top of that, as are heating costs on the off-peak tariff of about £130 a year, making an average burden on tenants of all-electric houses of about £335 a year. Even with full insulation, further consideration would have to be given to the hot water system, including the roof tank. Of course, all pipes must be lagged and off-peak tariffs must he used as often as possible.
I hope that I have made a case which the Minister finds interesting. I must stress that this is an economic solution within, I suspect, the budget of the Department of the Environment. There will be pressures on me and the city council to go for full conversion to another heating system. I do not think that that is viable in the present economic climate, but if the Minister can give me some hope that over the next three years Southampton will be allowed to complete a full insulation programme, the debate will not have been wasted.

8.31 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): This topic is a complex and important one

which is not, unfortunately, confined to the public sector, though that is the area on which attention has focused recently. It is one on which the Government are concerned to do what they can to help, and I shall briefly outline what we have done and are doing as well as deal with the problem in Southampton.
The Government are fully aware of the importance of energy conservation. It is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but as domestic energy consumption accounts for about one-fifth of national energy consumption it is also a subject of importance to my Department. About half of total domestic consumption is for space heating and about 20 per cent. is for water heating. We have two programmes aimed directly at saving energy in those areas—the public sector insulation programme and the homes insulation scheme 1978.
The public sector programme enables local authorities, new towns and housing assocations to install loft insulation, tank and pipe lagging and draught stripping. The resource provision for 1979–80 is about £24 million. Local authorities are given capital allocations and may claim subsidy on their expenditure. The homes insulation scheme covers similar measures and provides grants from local authorities for owner-occupiers, tenants and landlords towards the cost.
Those measures were chosen because there are about 2 million dwellings in the public sector, and about 5 million in the private sector, that lack basic insulation. The measures are cost-effective, cheap and easy to install. Recent work at the Building Research Establishment has shown that loft insulation has an internal rate of return of between 10 and 20 per cent. Tank lagging has a return of more than 100 per cent.
Other measures, such as cavity fill and double glazing, are expensive and technically complex and have a poor rate of return. Not all the dwellings without loft insulation will have to be insulated before we consider further measures, but they must remain our first priority.
Some electrically heated dwellings have had problems with high fuel bills and condensation. The joint working party on heating and energy conservation in the public sector, chaired by my


Department, has published advice to local authorities on this issue. In its domestic energy note No. 3, it suggests a whole range of remedial measures that could be taken and advises on how authorities could evaluate the problems in their dwellings and decide on the measures most appropriate. It has also issued a note advising authorities on the key points to bear in mind when considering the building of new dwellings with electric heating systems. My hon. Friend will not be surprised when I tell him that one of the points on which the working party laid great stress was the importance of high standards of insulation.
I turn now to Southampton and its request for a further allocation—so forcefully put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). I have seen the letter to the Department from the city treasurer and my hon. Friend's letter to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I am not in a position at present to tell my hon. Friend what will be Southampton's share of the general cutback in cash limits for 1979–80 or what form the guidelines for HIP allocations in future years will take. However, I understand it is unlikely that the cuts would be so severe as to prevent the council from spending £100,000 on energy conservation this year and a further £400,000 over the next two years—provided, of course, that the council is willing to give this work sufficient priority over other activities.
Of course, insulation is not just important for energy conservation and for reducing ever larger fuel bills; it also has a vital role to play in eradicating condensation and mould growth. My hon. Friend gave a number of examples of this. It is obvious that this can cause suffering and distress, particularly in dwellings which require more heat than the tenants can afford.
During recent winters there has been an increase in the number of complaints of dampness and mould growth resulting from condensation in dwellings. Most of the complaints brought to the attention of the Department have concerned public sector dwellings, but there are indications that it also affects the owner-occupied and private rented sectors, although its extent is not clear. Nor is the problem confined to specific types of dwellings, although it appears to be worse in some

than in others. It seems that the problem may be a national one which has its roots in changes in building design and construction practice, in rising fuel prices and in changes in living standards and lifestyles, to which my hon. Friend referred.
Condensation is moisture produced in a dwelling by normal household activities and is a result of a complex interaction between the building itself, the levels of heat and ventilation and the living standards of its occupants. It is not a new problem. This Department and its predecessor have circulated a great deal of information and advice over the last 20 years in an attempt to combat it. It has also taken steps to prevent its occurrence in new building. The last building regulations increase in insulation standards for domestic work in 1975 was for this purpose—and on grounds of health and safety, not energy conservation.
The general remedies for condensation are well understood—readily controllable ventilation, cost-effective thermal insulation and reasonably priced heating systems. However, continuing changes in all the causative factors mean that the measures appropriate at all times need to be tailored to suit the particular circumstances.
Currently the occurrence of condensation and the oft associated problem of black mould growth has, as my hon. Friend graphically pointed out, seemed most acute in dwellings with electric central heating. This is because rapidly increasing costs have made the heating system expensive to use and it is frequently run at too low a level, or too spasmodically, to maintain the fabric of the dwelling at a heat level which would prevent condensation.
The use of liquid petroleum gas or paraffin heaters in dwellings such as these, as an alternative method of heating, has added to the problem because they produce high amounts of moisture when in use. But condensation has been reported in dwellings heated by other fuels and in older dwellings which have been extensively improved. It can also occur in well insulated dwellings if sufficient care is not taken to ensure adequate ventilation.
Again, this problem of condensation and mould growth has been examined by


the Joint Working Party on Heating and Energy Conservation in Public Sector Dwellings. Its recently issued "Domestic Energy Note 4" drew together and added to advice previously given to authorities. It placed emphasis on the need for authorities and tenants to work together if the problem is to be tackled efficiently. The joint working party has also produced a leaflet for householders showing ways in which condensation and mould growth could be reduced. There has been considerable demand for both the technical note and the leaflet. I am glad that they are proving useful, but at the same time I am sorry that they are needed.
Just as the causes of the problem are variable, so are the remedies, and it is important for authorities to examine their dwellings carefully before embarking on any extensive remedial programmes. The pilot study and monitoring done by Southampton sounds extremely useful and interesting. I should be grateful to receive any more details that my hon. Friend is able to send me. I shall pass them on to the joint working party, which has a continuing interest in the problem. It has commissioned the Building Research Establishment to carry out a survey which should establish whether further work needs to be done on appropriate remedial action. It is also interested in learning of particular authorities' experiences and I know that its members would be keen to visit Southampton in the near future to learn about the problems and the remedies used there at first hand. From all that my hon. Friend has said this morning, I am sure that they would enjoy their visit and that it would be fruitful to all concerned.

BANABANS (COMPENSATION CLAIMS)

8.40 a.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a serious matter that has caused me and many other hon. Members from all parties deep concern over a long period, namely, the treatment accorded the Banaban community in the Pacific and the need to make amends.
On 12 June this House gave a Third Reading to the Kiribati Bill and by so

doing ruled that the Banabans were to be split between two sovereign jurisdictions, Fiji and the new Kiribati republic, and that their original homeland was to go to Kiribati against their will.
Many of us on both sides of the House regarded the decision not to separate Banaba from the Gilbert Islands colony—now Kiribati—as wrong, indeed as a final betrayal by the imperial power of its trust for a small, defenceless community. Many people who heard and read our debate wrote to me afterwards saying that our arguments were unanswerable—and so they were. None the less, the Government threw their weight against us, and a majority in Parliament decided to ignore the Banaban plea for separation from Kiribati and agreed that on 12 July sovereignty should pass finally and irrevocably to the Kiribati republic.
Thus the political future of Ocean Island, or Banaba, is now solely a matter for the Kiribati Government and people. It remains for this House simply and sincerely to wish them well and to hope that the discussions that the new Government have offered to hold with Banaban representatives, under the chairmanship of that greatly respected statesman of the Pacific, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Prime Minister of Fiji, will lead to a solution that the Banabans can be persuaded to accept.
Earlier this month the Pacific Council of Churches met and deliberated on the dispute between Kiribati and the Banabans. The Government have been singularly deaf to what has been said on the subject in the Pacific, and my hon. Friend the Minister might like to know that the council recommended, as its secretary, Mrs. Lorine Tevi stated,
that Ocean Island remain a British colony until a solution was reached that was acceptable to both parties.
Alas, that is no longer possible. We have hauled down the flag and have passed sceptre to others. We no longer have any say in the political shape of things to come in that part of the Pacific. In one respect, however, we retain a responsibility for the welfare of the Banaban people that the Government cannot shuffle off.
The Government still have a duty to discharge towards the people whom their predecessors have greviously wronged.
We still have to pay the ex gratis capital sum by way of compensation arising out of the High Court proceedings that the Banabans were forced to take against the British Government. We are under an obligation to provide the aid and technical assistance necessary to safeguard the economic future of the Banabans now split by our actions between two island homes.
My hon. Friend may be inclined to argue that our financial obligations towards the Banabans must be viewed in the context of our general aid programme. He may add that whatever help we give must also be affected by the stringent economy measures at present in force. In case there is any suggestion that the Banaban case is not unique, I think it is right that the House should know and that our official record should reflect the circumstances that give rise to the special and morally compelling obligation of this country towards the Banabans. That is the purpose of my raising the matter today.
In May 1900 the representative of a British company, a Mr. Albert Ellis, perpetrated upon the Banabans a sordid confidence trick. He fooled them into signing away the right to exploit their phosphate wealth for 999 years in exchange for £50 per annum, payable either in cash or in company goods, at the company's option. It may be said that much legalised robbery of this nature took place at that time and that later the Colonial Office did something to mitigate its worst aspects. It could hardly have done less.
Suffice it to record of this distasteful episode in our mercantile and colonial past that the founder of one of our largest public companies, Unilever, was a director and major shareholder of the company that so pitilessly exploited the Banabans. Pearl Binder whom most of us in this House know by another distinguished name, tells us in her moving book "Treasure Islands":
In 1920 when Lord Leverhulme's £100 million company was in serious financial difficulties the sale of his major holdings in the Pacific Phosphate Company's shares to the BPC, and the lavish compensation to the directors, helped to save Leverhulme from bankruptcy.
The price received was very many times the original investment and was only agreed after protracted and bitter negotiations during and after the Versailles conference. Criticism and

acrimonious complaint about the methods of the company had been continuous throughout its life.
No doubt my hon. Friend will tell me that he cannot be responsible for the unethical behaviour of three-quarters of a century ago. I do not disagree. But I believe it only right to record that one of our most prestigious public companies may owe its very existence to the rape of Banaba. I must also record with regret that the company in question chose to turn down an appeal for financial assistance which I made to it on behalf of the Banabans.
However, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pointed out on the Second Reading of the Kiribati Bill, the exploitation of the Banabans is remarkable for the fact that since 1920 the exploiters have not been great private corporations but the three Governments of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, acting in concert for the benefit of their own national interests. Whatever earlier wrongs were committed by private enterprise, these pale into insignificance against those perpetrated by a public corporation and by Government officials who knew what they were doing.
I stress at this point that, although the three nations represented by the British Phosphate Commissioners benefited from the exploitation of Banaban phosphates, Britain and Britain alone was the responsible, sovereign administering Power. I should like my hon. Friend to take special note of this fact for reasons which I shall give later.
What is it that puts the treatment of the Banaban people in a class of iniquity of its very own? I shall describe briefly, more briefly than I would wish, just two episodes.
By the time the British Phosphate Commission came into being in 1920, about 22½ per cent. of the phosphate-bearing land on Ocean Island, or Banaba, had been leased for excavation. The Banabans had already shown considerable reluctance to part with any more, but within three years the commissioners were demanding nearly 10 per cent. of the available phosphate land for future mining. The Banabans refused. Where, they asked, would their children live? If, however, more land was leased, they


would require not £150 per acre as suggested, but £5,000 per acre. As the proceeds of mining amounted to some £40,000 per acre, the Western Pacific high commissioner commented at the time that the Banaban demand did not appear to him to be unreasonable—not that right or reason have any place in this story.
Britain's residential commissioner in Ocean Island, the effective governor at the time, pressed the commissioners' requirements unscrupulously during 1927 and 1928. He offered £150 per acre for the Banabans' land, an amount equivalent to a penny farthing in old pence per ton of phosphate, together with a royalty of 10½d. per ton. The Banabans made it plain that they did not wish to sell, but asked the resident commissioner why 10½d. was the limit that the British Phosphate Commission could pay. He told them that competition in Australia and elsewhere made it necessary for the British Phosphate Commissioners to sell at the lowest price possible. Increased royalties would make them uncompetitive, and that would be the end of the commission and would therefore mean a sentence of death on the Banabans, who were by then dependent on the industry.
It was, of course, a complete lie. At the time the Banabans were being told that a total payment of anything more than 11¾d. per ton would render the British Phosphate Commissioners uncompetitive, Banaban phosphates were being sold to Australia at 12s. 6d. per ton cheaper than the nearest equivalent source. In moral terms, this amounted to fraud perpetrated with the assistance of blackmail. "If you do not sell on my terms," the British resident commissioner had told the Banabans," your land will be seized for the Empire at any old price "—to use his elegant words—" and your homes destroyed". Although the Banabans still refused, their land was compulsorily purchased in 1928 at £150 per acre and with a royalty per ton to be prescribed by the resident commissioner himself.
I now turn to the second episode which makes our moral obligation towards this tiny community uniquely imperative. The Second World War and Britain's abandonment of their homeland to the Japanese saw most Banabans exiled for forced labour; the rest were brutally

murdered.
After the war, the surviving Banabans were shipped by the British to Rabi, an island in the Fiji group, 1,400 miles to the south—bought, incidentally, with their own money. The colonial Government regarded the opportunity of removing the Banabans from Ocean Island as unique, and urged the British Phosphate Commissioners that shipping difficulties should not be permitted to frustrate a project which they had been striving to achieve for decades.
A return to Ocean Island, the Banabans were told, was impossible; everything there was destroyed; they would have to live there in tents. They were offered a free choice: they could go to Rabi or fend for themselves in the Gilbert Islands, as they had done during the Japanese occupation. Given this invidious choice, the Banabans went to Rabi. There they were dumped in the hurricane season to fend for themselves with a few months' provisions and some tents. In short, no more permanent accommodation existed on Rabi than they would have found on Ocean Island.
Yet all this, too, was based on a lie. At the very moment that the Banabans were being told this, unbeknown to them the British Phosphate Commissioners, with the active co-operation of the colonial authority, were busy recruiting labour elsewhere to resume phosphate mining on Ocean Island and were preparing permanent accommodation and social services for the newcomers which would have been most welcome for at least part of the indigenous Banaban community.
The coup de grace was administered in 1947, when the unfortunate Banabans were persuaded both to remain on Rabi and to sign away on fixed and immutable terms 58 per cent. of the total phosphate land which had existed at the outset and virtually all that remained.
To describe this infamous treatment of a defenceless people, I can do no better that quote briefly from the historic judgment of the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Robert Megarry, at the end of November 1976. Ministers of both Governments should hang their heads in shame at what he said:
The other failure of government to which I shall refer was the gravest in its consequences


to the Banabans. That was the absence of any advice to the Banabans, or encouragement to get advice, when they were embarking on the 1947 negotiations. The Banabans had suffered grievous hardships under the Japanese during the war: they had been uprooted from their homes on Ocean Island and had no immediate prospects of returning even to see what state that island was in; they had been less than a year and a half on Rabi, an unknown island in a different colony with a markedly different climate; they had had all the problems of living in temporary or makeshift accommodation, like so many others after the war; and many of them had been ill. In those circumstances, they were about to embark upon negotiations for by far the largest disposition of phosphate land that they had ever made, one which would take nearly all the workable phosphate left on Ocean Island, and consume well over two-fifths of the entire island.
The learned judge concluded from this:
All these facts must have been known, and well known, to the High Commissioner and to Major Holland, whom the High Commissioner had appointed to look after the Banabans. In those circumstances, I do not see how the omission to encourage the Banabans to get proper advice and assistance and to make haste slowly, and the prohibiting of Major Holland from helping the Banabans can possibly be called good government or the proper discharge of the duties of trusteeship in the higher sense.
The Vice-Chancellor was referring here to an instruction in writing from the high commissioner to the Banaban adviser, Major Holland, not to advise the Banabans, who were paying his salary. It is one of the worst examples that I can recall of a breach of duty by the administrators of a subject people. The Banabans were again pushed into signing what they did not fully comprehend. As a consequence, they were totally unaware of this expropriation of their phosphate resources until they hired professional advisers in Australia in 1965, some 18 years later.
As any payments to the Banabans will be in present-day currency, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is only fair to take inflation into account. The £62 million benefit obtained by Britain has a current purchasing power of £103 million. The £17 million benefit obtained by Australia and New Zealand over the years has a current purchasing power of £69 million. Thus we arrive at a total, in today's terms, of £172 million which was obtained from the Banabans by a shameful combination of bullying, coercion and chicanery. My hon. Friend need not look at me: the figures are derived in part from answers received from Ministers in this House.
These are the very special circumstances which make our obligations towards the Banabans, whether within Fiji or Kiribati, unique and compelling.
How do the present Government propose to compensate the Banabans? We are in the process of trying to work this out. With all the assistance that our partners in this sorry business—Australia and New Zealand—can be persuaded to give, how much will the Banabans receive now that the phosphate is exhausted and their original homeland almost totally destroyed? I shall give the figures and, to be more than fair, I shall give the sterling equivalent of the Australian offers or awards at the exchange rate applicable at the time that they were made: first, in exchange for calling off all legal action against the Crown, £6·25 million; secondly, a sum of interest on this sum which has so far been agreed at £937,500: thirdly, in settlement of the Banabans' case against the commissioners, £780,000: fourthly, as a grant of development aid from the ODA, £1 million. The grand total is less than £9 million. Seen in the context of the £172 million which Banaban phosphates contributed for I he benefit of others, such a sum is pathetically inadequate. It must be increased substantially if we are to emerge from this shameful episode in our history with any credit at all.
I must tell the House that as chairman of the justice for the Banabans campaign and at the invitation of the Banaban leaders, I have taken part in discussions with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealh Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker). Those discussions have been aimed at negotiating the transfer of all the sums that I have listed, with the exception of the British Phosphate Commissioners' payment of £780,000 which has been made already. I am aware that my hon. Friend will shortly be conferring with his opposite numbers in the Australian and New Zealand Governments about the transfer of moneys already offered. The Banabans, with the help of their able and experienced economic adviser, Philip Shrapnel and Company, of Sydney, have proposed the investment of the moneys in a Banaban fund to be audited, we hope, by the Auditor-General of Fiji. That is going smoothly. I am confident that my hon. Friend is fully


seized of these matters and will do his best to move things along.
I must, however, draw the attention of the House to an aspect of the matter that causes me and my fellow trustees grave disquiet. I am still speaking within the context of the totally inadequate sums which have been offered. I am sorry to tell the House that the payment to the Banabans of a sum of interest amounting to about £300,000 is still being disputed. I have already made my personal views of this wholly unexpected piece of meanness plain to my hon. Friend.
The House should be aware of the details as the sum in question arises out of a statement—I would say a pledge—made to this House by the former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). On 27 May 1977, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that the then Government were offering the Banabans 10 million Australian dollars, that is, £6·25 million, on certain conditions, the principal one being that they would not appeal their case against the Crown. It was a matter of "You call off your appeal against the Crown and we will offer an ex-gratis payment of 10 million Australian dollars or £6·25 million". In answer to a supplementary question by my right hon. Friend the then Member for Knutsford, Mr. John Davies, the Foreign Secretary said:
We estimate that the 10 million Australian dollars, invested now, would accumulate to 12 million dollars by the end of 1979 when phosphates run out. This sum would give the benefits of unearned income of about 350 dollars per capita."—[Official Report, 27 May 1977; Vol. 932, c. 1761.]
On 30 November, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, the Minister of State, who was handling the matter in the other place, wrote to the Banabans to say that the notional interest on the 10 million Australian dollars amounted by then to 1·5 million Australian dollars. The noble Lord felt that the Australian and New Zealand Governments would agree to this being paid if he received an early indication that the offer as a whole would be accepted by the Banabans.
The House will recall that at that time the Banabans had just been told that they would be forced against their will

into the new Kiribati State. They were not prepared to accept this, as was their right. They were determined to fight the political battle to the very end. They had no wish to haggle over money while the constitutional question closest to their hearts remained at issue.
I can understand the then Government's wish to persuade the Banaban leaders to accept the money. Had they done so, I have no doubt that it would have been widely suggested that money was more important to the Banabans than self-determination. Innuendoes of that kind, as many of my hon. Friends know, have been made more than once. Indeed, in order to attract the Banabans into a discussion on financial matters, Lord Goronwy-Roberts added to the lure of interest payments the promise of development aid amounting to £1 million and a resources survey of Banaba. That was very attractive.
But, as the carrot did not work, the stick was then used. If the Banabans refused to talk about the money while the political battle raged, interest accruing on the capital sum would not be paid to them after 31 December 1978. That is almost without precedent in negotiations of this kind. I have told my hon. Friend that I could see no justification whatever for punishing the Banabans for not meeting the Government's wishes. I have made plain that if the interest accumulating on this capital sum continued to the end of phosphate mining, as the former Secretary of State indicated in the House it should, they ought to receive not only the 1·5 million Australian dollars which had accumulated by 30 November but every single cent that accrues from that date to the moment the capital sum itself is made over.
I am glad to see an increasing number of right hon. and hon. Members in the House as I am confident that anything less will be regarded by them as a mean and vindictive act and would be totally unacceptable either to them or to the wider public outside. Our national reputation has been besmirched enough already by years of mistreatment of these people without its being besmirched further by this final dishonourable act.
I have confidence that my hon. Friend has grasped this point. He has, after all, come to office only recently. He can


be acquitted of any responsibility for the misdeeds perpetrated earlier. I trust that he will put forcefully to the Australian and New Zealand Governments what I have said. I hope that he will find, as I have suggested to him, that his information that our partners in the British Phosphate Commissioners are adamant in withholding interest after 31 December is not accurate.
Up till now the British Government have suggested to me that the reason for this lies in the attitude of the Australian and New Zealand Governments. I can say with some authority—I have received information from down under—that in the case at least of New Zealand that is utterly untrue. As I shall be visiting New Zealand next week, I shall raise the matter with Ministers there.
So the British Government have no right to shelter behind allegations that the Australian and New Zealand Governments have been dragging their feet. However, wherever the truth lies, it is neither morally right nor economically sound to apply any terminal date for the payment of interest before the final handing over of the capital sum. If Australia and New Zealand refuse to accept that, I know that the House will expect the Government to make up any shortfall, and we should like some undertaking from the Minister about that.
Most of the paltry £9 million which is on offer arises out of an action brought on the advice of one of our most distinguished lawyers, Lord Elwyn-Jones, against the Attorney-General of the United Kingdom Government. The Australian and New Zealand Governments are to be commended for their willingness to contribute the larger part of an ex gratia payment in respect of a bill which strictly speaking is payable by the United Kingdom Government alone.
Indeed, when I visited the Pacific in 1965 and talked to Ministers and officials of the Australian and New Zealand Governments at that time, I was made fully aware that they recognised the great benefits which their farmers had received over many years from Banaban phosphates. They told me then, and others have told me since, that, irrespective of the case against the British Phosphate Commission, they were prepared to contribute

generously to the Banabans in direct bilateral development aid. I trust that this is still the position.
My final words are these—[Interruption.] The House has been very patient and I am grateful for the moral support that it is giving me on this sad issue. It seems to be hoped in official circles that our debt to the Banaban people can be discharged by the payment of between £2 million and £3 million, most of which comes not from the taxpayer but from the reserve fund of the British Phosphate Commissioners, who have been exploiting Banaban and other Pacific island phosphates for nearly 60 years.
The officials of the Treasury and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may consider this good housekeeping—perhaps it is, when we consider how successive Governments have squandered our own national substance—but in this context they must be told that it would be nothing less than a moral outrage that our contribution towards the future welfare of the Banaban people in their two island homes should rest there. I am making a plea for Her Majesty's Government in this final act of reparation—for that is what it should be—to err on the side of generosity. There is no other way in which to make amends.

9.4 a.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker): If I have the leave of the House to speak for a second time in this debate, I shall do my best to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). I hope he will forgive me if I am brief, because I know that many other hon. Members wish to raise topics in this debate.
I will not go over the constitutional ground, because my hon. Friend and I have tilled that pretty well in recent weeks. I do not accept his interpretation of opinion in the Pacific about this matter, having recently returned from there myself. I should say that on the financial claims, which are the real subject of this debate, I do not accept much of my hon. Friend's extravagant language.
Four offers were made to the Banabans by the British, Australian and New Zealand Governments. First, an offer of 1·25 million Australian dollars was made


by the British Phosphate Commission. That has been accepted by the Banabans. Second, an offer was made in May 1977 of a fund of 10 million Australian dollars to be provided out of the British Phosphate Commission's resources which would provide an income on a continuing basis for the Banabans as a whole. Third, an offer was made of £1 million for development aid for Ranbi. Fourth, there is an offer of a resources survey on Ocean Island to see what use can be made of it. That offer has been accepted.
I regret that there has been considerable delay in the Banabans accepting some of those offers. I am glad, however, that in recent talks the Banabans have agreed to accept the offers, subject to legal formalities. We now hope to go ahead rapidly.
The main point made by my hon. Friend was about interest. I do not accept his interpretation of the statement made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) in 1977. I do not believe that he implied that interest would be paid. The right hon. Gentleman made his statement about interest on the assumption that the offer would be accepted rapidly by the Banabans. He made a calculation of the interest if it was accumulated until the end of 1979 when the phosphate mining will cease.
Nevertheless, an offer was subsequently made by the Australian, New Zealand and British Governments to pay interest up to the end of 1978. It was made clear before the end of 1978 that interest would not be paid after that date if the offer was not then taken up. I believe that the reason why that terminal date was set was that the three Governments, not least the Australian and New Zealand Governments were becoming distressed about the long delay in taking up the offer.

Sir Bernard Braine: : The Minister must be more specific. My information is that the New Zealand Government, and by inference the Australian Government, were prepared to pay interest up to the

end of March. There is a big difference in that. Is my hon. Friend saying that that is not so?

Mr. Blaker: I have already taken up the question of paying interest after December 1978 at the highest level with the Australian and New Zealand Governments. I am anxious to help my hon. Friend. I suggest that we should proceed as fast as possible to complete the formalities for the acceptance of the offer of 10 million Australian dollars. That will ease my task in persuading the Australian and New Zealand Governments to continue to pay interest to the latest possible date.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend cannot get away with this. He has not answered the question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has not given way.

Mr. Blaker: My hon. Friend does not correctly interpret the New Zealand and Australian position. I have talked at the highest level with those Governments recently. It will not be easy to persuade them to do what my hon. Friend wants them to do. In my hon. Friend's interest and that of the Banabans, I urge him to persuade the Banabans to accept the offer and the legal formalities as soon as possible. That will provide me with the best opportunity of persuading the New Zealand and Australian Governments to pay interest up to the latest possible date.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House; immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House this day; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory instruments, &amp;c.)

HOVERCRAFT

That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

NURSING QUALIFICATIONS (EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DIRECTIVES)

That the draft Nursing Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.— [Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

LLOYD's INSURANCE BUSINESS (EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DIRECTIVE)

That the draft Lloyd's (General Business) Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 12 June, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEES RELATED TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 July].

Ordered,
That the Standing Order (Select Committees related to Government Departments) be amended, in the Table, column 4 (Maximum numbers of Members), in respect of the Defence Committee, the Energy Committee, the Environment Committee, and the Transport Committee, by leaving out "10" and inserting "11" instead thereof.—[Mr. Newton.]

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Motion made,
That Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Andrew Bennett, Mr. R. B Cant, Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth, Mr. Tony Durant, Sir

Nigel Fisher, Mr. Percy Grieve, Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Charles R. Morris, Mr. Arthur Palmer, and Mr. Frederick Willey, be members of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.—[Mr. Newton.]

Hon. Members: Object.

OAKENSHAW PRIMARY SCHOOL

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]

9.14 a.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: A number of right hon. and hon. Members cannot understand why I, as a former Minister and a former Whip, should be involved in the Adjournment debate at the end of the Consolidated Fund Bill. In spite of the inconvenient hour, I welcome this opportunity of raising an issue which, for the small group of people involved, is very important.
I have strong views about education and about the place of schools in the community. I shall deal with that and then turn to the particular circumstances at Oakenshaw in County Durham, which is only a mile from where I was born and brought up, so that I know the village and its history very well.
I sat on the Government Front Bench when the Labour Government were in office and I advanced the economic and education cases for the closure of certain small schools. I understand the background of the arguments that I have no doubt the Minister will advance
I have come to the conclusion that for young children—the school in question is a primary school with children from the age of 5 years to 11 years—we should avoid, if it is at all possible, requiring them to travel on public transport to unfamiliar surroundings, even though on the map the distance may seem short. We should avoid young children being away from home for long periods every day. I know that there are children who can adapt themselves and can survive those difficulties, but the very children whom we should be most concerned about often experience great difficulties. When they are moved to a school that is away from familiar surroundings and to a much larger community than that to which they are accustomed, they are


conscious that mam is a long way from them and not very accessible, especially during lunch time. Therefore, children who already have difficulty in learning find that their education is very much affected.
I have come to the conclusion that public transport is a menace for young children. They seem to go berserk when they get on public transport. We should avoid the hazard of moving them from familiar surroundings if that is possible.
Oakenshaw was a mining village. I well remember it before the war when there was an all-age school which was the centre of the community. After the war the planners in Durham, with the best of intentions—I have no quarrel with the planners because there was nothing sinister in their motives—took the view that people would no longer want to live in a small village, especially when there was a pit heap and difficult housing circumstances. The planners believed that everyone would want to move to new towns and to conurbations where all the facilities would be available. In fact, there has been a move in the opposite direction.
Over 25 years ago Oakenshaw was designated by the Durham council as a D village, which meant that no development could take place. For example, house improvements were not allowed. The council was not prepared to invest because the village was designated to die. It is understandable that there was a decline in morale. People were moving out and no one was moving in. There was a diminution of the number of children attending the village school.
I am glad to say that the blight has gone. The D category has been removed. Oakenshaw is now a pleasant village in which to live. Some houses have been demolished, roads have been improved and new roads have been constructed. People have bought their homes from the National Coal Board. A great number of houses are now owner-occupied and improved. Younger people are moving into the village.
It is true that there is an economic case for closure. There are 20, 21 or 22 children attending the school, and there is argument about whether in two or three years there will be 25 or 27. These

figures indicate the difficulty. I understand the argument that the Department will advance. However, a community association has been established. There is a pre-school playgroup. Even those who lived in the village through the blight have found a new spirit and fresh morale. That has happened because the blight has been removed. Once again a closely knit community is growing, which I am anxious to help if possible. I regret, especially in Durham and in my constituency, that dozens of small closely knit communities that were grouped around the coal pits have gone. That is no reason why we should assist in destroying the closely knit community which meant so much to me when I was a boy.
As I have said, younger folk are moving into the village and there is an active community. There are some empty houses, but I think that they will be filled by younger people. They are findiong the community association to be a focal point and they are anxious not to lose the school.
Another aspect is parental involvement. I am sure that the Minister shares my view on this. Perhaps the key factor in a youngster's progress is the parents' involvement and encouragement. When a village school is closed and the children have to travel to the nearest town, it makes the parental involvement all the more difficult.
I can see the economic case for closing schools. I no longer believe that there is an educational case for closing schools. There are questions related to grading. There is the fact that the teacher has to take three, four or five age groups all at once. But I think that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
The local council has allocated land and it is hoped that 36 private houses will be built. The village is about six miles from the beautiful city of Durham. I think that it will be attractive to folk who want to live in the North. Frankly, I cannot understand anyone wanting to live south of Darlington if he has the opportunity of living in the county that I love so much.
I am not opposing root and branch, as I do with some schools. I believe that the change in category, the new morale and the change in circumstances demand that we give this little community the opportunity to prove itself as a warm


community where children will feel secure and will be happy and therefore progress educationally, which is an aim that the Minister and I both share.
I am asking, therefore, for what I might call a two-year stay of execution so that we may see whether the new homes are attractive to people outside the village, so that we may see whether the community can grow and offer the kind of stability and security which are so important as a basis for good education. I do not think that that is asking too much. A two-year stay of execution will not make or mar the Government's economic strategy. It will not cripple the ratepayers of Durham if they have to pay a little extra in order to give this community the opportunity that I think it deserves. Its work over the past 12 months has, I believe, given it the right to a stay of execution.
I notice that the Minister's letter to me expresses the hope that integration will be done
as smoothly as possible".
I also notice the statement that
free transport will be provided".
I hope that if the worst happens and transport is necessary, that undertaking will be honoured, because I have been reading certain reports which alarm me somewhat as to the future.
I was trained as a teacher. I grew up with certain ideas about education, about intelligence quotients, and so on. But my experience over the years has changed my mind on certain aspects. I know this village well and I know the folk in it. I know that statistics can be produced to make a strong case—certainly on economic grounds—for the closure of the school. This used to be an all-age school and so there is ample room. The county spent a considerable amount of money on it 12 to 15 years ago and it is a very pleasant school. Indeed, I am embarassed to find how pleasant some of my schools are in comparison with some of those in the inner cities. They were built as all-age schools and they now house a very much smaller population. Often a new hall has been added, and I am sure that many of them are a pleasure to work in and to be taught in.
As I have said, this will not cripple the Government's economic strategy in any way. Even at this inconvenient hour, I

was thinking what a tremendous boost it would be for these folk if we said "Yes, there is an economic case, but because we are concerned with very young children indeed, and because we regard them as more important than statistics, balance sheets and so on, we shall give the community an opportunity to prove itself over two years". I ask the Minister not to close the door.
Only yesterday I was interviewed on television, and the commentator asked "Do you not think that you are wasting the time of the House of Commons?" My reaction was that he did not understand the House of Commons. In a way, it is unique that I am able to raise on the Floor of the House of Commons the case of a very few people, in a very small, remote village in a beautiful part of the country. That is something worth while. I know that the Minister will share that view.
If for once we accepted the human side, considered these children and gave that community a chance, what a tremendous boost it would be for people who are working hard to establish a stable community, to which the school is absolutely essential if it is to survive and prosper.

9.28 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I concur with one of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong). It is certainly not a waste of time to discuss the closure of a village school which I appreciate matters greatly to the families there, the area and to the right hon. Gentleman himself.
I have certain things in common with the right hon. Gentleman. We were both school teachers. We both went to village schools. I went to a small Church of England school in a mill village, not very different from the mining villages in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. In addition, in a previous incarnation, the right hon. Gentleman has stood at this Dispatch Box and has undoubtedly answered Adjournment debates of this type.
I would not write off everyone who lives south of Darlington as unaesthetic or uncultured. I can inform the right hon. Gentleman that I have a daughter


who lives in Darlington, and I shall inform her of his views. I also have a daughter who did her postgraduate certificate in Saxon archaeology on the banks of the river at the university of Durham. However, I do not want to explore what we have in common any further.
We certainly have in common a concern for the village school. The attitude of certain enlightened opinion, about which I have had doubts from time to time, has changed about the size of school and its value to a community. The Plowden report referred to a figure of about 80, but that has certainly come down. A village school fulfils certain distinctive functions. It holds together the life of the community in the village—again I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—and the family life. Children can easily return home at lunch time. Similarly, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point about less travel, particularly in times of inclement weather in winter.
In many cases, there are educational arguments for the village school. For instance, the teacher knows the children, has taught the elder brothers and sisters and, in many cases, the parents as well. Such a school is part of the social cement and fabric of such a community, and I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's view in that regard. However, the point must be raised as to the level at which decisions can be made, and at what size village schools should be kept open, particularly if there are other schools within reasonable travelling distance.
In Oakenshaw, near where the right hon. Gentleman was born, there is a pleasant three-classroom school, with a staff of a head, a full-time teacher and a part-time teacher. In September last year, when the procedure began—the section 13 notice ran from December under the Durham local education authority—there were only 20 pupils on roll, taught in two teaching groups. agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the numbers may be flexible over the next four or five years, but they are bzetween 18 and 25 each year; we shall not quarrel over two one way or the other.
The point about this village school is that one and a half miles away, as the right hon. Gentleman will say—or 1·3

miles away, as I shall say, because it makes a better case by 0·2 of a mile, though I am sure that, again, we shall not argue about this—there are two other small schools. Those schools, the Willing-ton county infants and county junior schools are bigger and have more facilities than are needed for the number of children attending them. Last September an infant school that could cope with 210 children had only 85, and a junior school that could cope with 245 had only 198. It is estimated that by 1981 there would be only 137 children in that county junior school.
I have no doubt about the beauty of the Wear valley, but I did not realise that the school was only six miles from Durham. I should have checked my geography more carefully. I looked at an Ordnance Survey map, but I must have got the scale slightly wrong.
By 1981 there would be in the Wear valley two schools with 300 spare places, when spending on education in Durham county, as well as in the rest of the country, will have to be carefully examined. The question of the distance between the two villages is important. I realise that communities exist and that there is a border where one moves from one to the other. Indeed, as a Northerner with a London seat, I have learnt that even London is made up of a series of villages. Even in my constituency, people do not live in Brent, North. They do not consider themselves as living within the new local government boundaries, if they can find any excuse. Certainly they do not use the new names given to the new areas. People do not even live in Wembley; they live in Kingsbury, Tokyngton Friern or little places. If one asks people "Where do you live?" they never reply "Wembley." They rarely say that they live in Brent, North or Boysonland.
However, my point is that the distance from Oakenshaw to the Willington schools is only 1·3 miles. What the right hon. Gentleham said about transport is important. Durham has said that it will provide free transport, even though the distance is below the two-mile and three-mile limits. The right hon. Gentleman was wise to underline that.
I checked whether the road was closed at all in the inclement weather of last winter. I know that it is always dangerous to say things when a constituency hon.


Member knows better than those who advise us, but I was informed that in the very inclement weather the road was open, so there is no difficulty in getting to the Willington schools in a normal winter.

Mr. Armstrong: I know the argument about the roads being open. More important is the fact that sometimes a bus will be late and parents will become anxious. That is a greater hazard with mothers, who are beside themselves with worry.

Dr. Boyson: I take the right hon. Member's point. It applies to the cities, too. The No. 83 bus route runs through my constituency and I have continued complaints along the same lines.
I have no doubt that when the right hon. Member reads the report of this debate in Hansard he will sideline the part about the bus, and will see that every member of the local education authority has his own copy so that he realises how important it is that the bus should be reliable. This is an integral part of the agreement.
The decisive point in the argument is the financial one. There would be a net saving of £23,000 achieved through closing the school. Having spent 11 years in local government, I know that figures worked out by local authorities do not always turn out to be correct. There is no doubt that there will be a considerable saving. The figure includes the cost of the transport.
Turning to the question of the pupil-teacher ratio, the point has to be made that a low pupil-teacher ratio in one school means that another school elsewhere in the authority—perhaps a city school—has to have larger classes to pay for the priviliges of that village school. These days urban deprivation is more acute than rural deprivation. There were 20 children in that school last September with two full-time teachers and one part-time teacher. I do not know whether the part-time teacher was ·1 or ·10 or whether she was three-legged. If it was a 2·5 figure, the pupil-teacher ratio is eight. The average for the country is about 23·9. I do not suppose that the Durham figure is much different. That means that elsewhere in the authority class sizes have been inflated.
This will not be the last Adjournment debate concerned with school closures with which I shall have to deal. It may he a good idea if I keep my notes for future occasions. What has to be made clear to the country is how large is the fall in the child population. Not many people realise the size of it. In 1977 we had 4·7 million primary schoolchildren. By 1986 we shall have 3·4 such children—a fall of 1·3 million. In certain areas it is a fall of 50 per cent. It is a fall the like of which has never before occurred in our lifetime.
There is a balance to be struck between the village-type school and the schools such as those operated at Willington, between the security of one and the variety offered by the other. Unless there is an overriding reason for keeping small schools open, the penalty in teacher numbers will be very high. All local education authorities will have to consider the economic costs of their schools, which include teacher and energy costs, and which have to be carried by the ratepayers.
I should like to refer now to extra building—the D notice. D notices have been mentioned in other connections in other debates. Apparently there was a blockage on development, but it has now been taken off. We were told that there would be about 24 houses. The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be about 36 private houses. However, we shall not argue about the figures.
But, even if 36 houses are built and they are occupied by virile and fertile families—I am sure that with such a right hon. Member to represent them they will be virile and fertile families—it will take some time to achieve the increased numbers to make this an economic proposition. It will take at least five or six years. As I said, even if these houses are built and young people go into them—we should like to see the revitalising of village life—the scene is not likely to change in the next few years.
I respect the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity in this matter, but the closure of the school has been agreed. It was not done by a naughty Government in London. It was not brutal Londoners who said the school must close. The recommendation came from the right hon.


Gentleman's local authority on a section 13 notice and the Minister of State sent out the letter of closure recently.
The news that I have to give the right hon. Gentleman will not send him cheering back to the Durham area for the Summer Recess. We shall have to stand by the closure notice. The cost of maintaining a school of that size would be out of all proportion to the pupil-teacher ratio throughout the county. It is only 1·3 or 1·5 miles to the next village schools, which will be half empty by 1981, and the local authority has promised that regular transport will be provided.
The closure will not take place rapidly. We must be fair to the Department. The closure is scheduled for 1980, so that should give time for the integration to take place. We hope that the closure will not have a serious effect on the development of that village which the

right hon. Gentleman knows so well. The movement of the children to Willington will save £23,000. In addition, it will be easier on the pupil-teacher ratio for the Durham area and to some extent it will broaden the curriculum at Willington.
I do not suggest that a new brass band will come into being by bringing the two villages together—it is an area for brass bands, as is the Rossendale valley in my area, which also has the Rossendale Singers—but in the long run I think that it will be for the good of both villages, the county and the children themselves.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Ten o'clock a.m.